The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to appeal under Section 30 of the RDDBFI Act is not contingent upon invoking Rules 60 and 61 of the Income Tax Act. Additionally, the judgment clarified the application of Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, emphasizing that the petitioner's purchase did not create a second charge and did not impair the bank's security.

ORDER :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ-C No.57359 of 2013 dated January 17, 2022 dismissing the petitioner-appellant's writ petition and affirming an order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad in Appeal No. 8114 of 2013. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, by the order under challenge before the learned Single Judge, has reversed an appellate order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Allahabad in Appeal No. 23 of 2009 under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short "RDDBFI Act") and restored the auction sale dated October 13, 2009 in DRC No. 213 of 2002 by the Recovery Officer attached to the Tribunal in favour of Respondent No. 4 to this appeal, Ramu Jaiswal.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the petitioner-appellant purchased through a registered sale deed dated July 28, 1995 land comprising Arazi No. 286, situate at Village Kukradeo, District Kanpur Dehat from Harish Kumar son of Bhagwandas. Harish Kumar shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the judgment-debtor'. Upon the land being purchased by the petitioner, he established a small-scale industry. The property above described and purchased by the petitioner shall hereinafter be called 'the property in dispute'. Prior to execution of the sale deed in the petitioner-appellant's favour by the judgment-debtor, the latter had mortgaged his one-fourth share in the property in dispute in favour of Central Bank of India, Branch Sisamau, Kanpur Nagar in order to secure a loan that he had availed. The judgment-debtor had defaulted in the repayment of loan that he owed the Bank. The Bank filed Application No. 580 of 2000 for recovery of its outstandings amounting to Rs.10,68,844/- which was decided against the judgment-debtor by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. DRC No. 215 of 2002 was issued against the judgment-debtor in proceedings for enforcement of the certificate.

3. On April 2, 2009 the Recovery Officer fixed a date for holding the auction, scheduling it on June 10, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. On the said date, the auction could not be held. The Recovery Officer thereupon got a sale proclamation published in Amar Ujala Hindi Daily issue dated October 11, 2009 scheduling the auction for October 13, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. The order to do so was passed by the Recovery Officer on August 19, 2009. On October 13, 2009 the auction was held, with only one bidder, that is to say, Ramu Jaiswal/ Respondent No.4, who purchased the property in dispute for a sum of Rs.93,500/-. The petitioner-appellant challenged the aforesaid auction sale dated October 13, 2008 by preferring Misc. Appeal No. 23 of 2009 under Section 30 of the RDDBFI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad (for short 'the Tribunal'). The confirmation in the auction sale was stayed by an interim order passed by the Tribunal on November 12, 2009 subject to deposit of Rs.92,200/- which the petitioner made good. The respondent No. 4, Ramu Jaiswal made an application for impleadment in the aforesaid appeal, but it appears that the application was dismissed for non-prosecution. The order of the Tribunal dated April 8, 2013 to which allusion would be made a little later, however, shows that the fourth respondent, who shall hereinafter be called 'the auction purchaser' appears to have been heard by the Tribunal and his case was considered in Appeal No. 23 of 2009, which was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated April 8, 2013 on the ground that the right of redemption, that the petitioner had purchased from the judgment-debtor, would continue up to confirmation of the sale and the sale was not binding, so long as it was not confirmed. It was also held that the petitioner had already deposited the amount, for which the property in dispute was sold in favour of the fourth respondent. There was a further direction to refund the sale price to the auction purchase