JUDGMENT :

Facts :

1. Punjab National Bank (respondent no.3 bank) has granted certain credit facilities to M/s Shamli Papers Mill Ltd. (respondent no.5/borrower company), however, it defaulted in payment.

2. The Bank accordingly initiated proceedings under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “SARFAESI”) and mortgaged property was put for auction. At this stage, the borrower company filed a Securitization Application (S.A.) No. 160 of 2010 before Debt Recovery Tribunal at Lucknow (for short “DRT”).

3. The DRT passed an interim order dated 19.07.2011, whereby the bank was allowed to proceed further for auction but restrained the bank not to confirm the sale till further order.

4. First sale notice was not materialized, therefore, bank issued fresh sale notice and ultimately auction was materialized on 17.02.2014. Petitioner (auction purchaser) deposited complete sale price and sale certificate was also issued on 03.03.2014 to auction purchaser.

5. Petitioner (auction purchaser) filed an application before DRT for impleadment and clarification of interim order dated 19.07.2011 passed by DRT.

6. On above referred application, the DRT passed an order dated 08.05.2014 whereby application was allowed and held that the auction dated 17.02.2014 to be illegal and quashed it and the bank was directed to refund the amount received from petitioner (auction purchaser) along with interest. Relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter :-

“I have heard rival submissions and perused the record.

It reveals from the record that restrain order dated 19.07.11 was passed by my predecessor was with specific direction that the "the bank to proceed as per law but do not confirm the sale till further orders" and the said order was not vacated till date by this Tribunal. The Contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that since no bid was received, therefore, auction was not materialized, thus the order dated 19.07.11 has no effect is not acceptable. A formal declaration of this Tribunal was necessary before proceeding further. The second limb of argument of the respondent-bank is that the order dated 19.07.2011 was for the sale notice dated 16.6.11 which pertains to auction sale of the factory, land and building only and the plant and machinery were not part of the said auction. Therefore, in any case the said restrain order is not applicable for the plant and machinery. The said contention of the respondent Bank is not sustainable as during the fourth impugned auction, the factory land and building were also put for auction along with plant and machinery, therefore, I do not find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent- Bank and I am of the view that since without vacation of the restrain order the respondent-Bank proceeded further and sold the plant and machinery in the auction, the said act amounts disobedience of the interim order of this Tribunal, therefore, the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Allahabad in case of Savitri Devi (supra) is rightly applicable in the present matter. Their Lordship in the said judgment has categorically held that :-

"9. Admittedly,... it is settled regal proposition that sale deeds so executed are a nullity as having been executed in disobedience of the interim order of the Court. In Mulraj V. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj, AIR 1967 SC 1386 the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the effect of action taken subsequent to passing of an interim order in its disobedience and held that any action taken in disobedience of the order passed by the Court would be legal subsequent action would be nullity

10. Similar view has been reiterated in Surjit Singh and others v Harbans Singh and others, 1995 (6) SSC 50 1995 SCFBRC $30, Govt. of A.P. Gudepu Salic and others, 200 (4) SSC 625, Hansraj Tirathram v. The Administrator, Municipality Jammu, AIR 1963 Kerala 18.

11. Therefore, there is no doubt that th