1. Earlier the borrowers i.e., respondent No.3, 4 and 5 herein, filed a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 4898/2011. The said writ petition was filed on 23.7.2011. On 28.7.2011 the parties to the said litigation produced a settlement, which was entered into between them before the Court and Court passed the order in terms of settlement. The terms of settlement are as under:-

“(1) That, the present petition has been filed challenging the auction proceedings initiated by the State Bank of India under SARFAESI Act, 2002.

(2) That, as on date an amount of Rs.1,05,36,058/- (Rupees One Crore Five Lakh Thirty Six Thousand and Fifty Eight Only) is due against the petitioner. The property has already been auctioned on 26.7.2011.

(3) That, the petitioners are ready to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,05,36,058/- on or before 05.08.2011 in full and final settlement. If the aforesaid amount is deposited by the petitioners on or before 05.08.2011, in that case, the respondent Bank shall not finalize the auction held on 26.07.2011 in regard to the petitioner's property and the loan account shall be closed.

(4) That, if the petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid amount up to 05.08.2011 in that case, the said proposal shall come to an end and respondent State Bank of India shall finalize the auctions proceedings held on 26-07-2011 and shall proceed further against the petitioners for remaining dues."

This Court disposed of the said petition with the observation that since the parties have entered into a settlement, the petition is disposed of in terms of the settlement. It is further observed that settlement shall bind the parties.

2. This petition is filed by the auction-purchaser submitting that the action of the bank runs contrary to the mandate of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act') and also against the settlement arrived at between the parties. To elaborate, Shri Dudawat, learned counsel for the present petitioners submits that as per the settlement the petitioner was required to pay the amount positively by 5th August 2011. Interestingly, the settlement provides the consequence of not depositing of said amount by 5th August, 2011 in Clause 4, whereby it is mentioned that the proposal will come to an end and respondent State Bank of India shall finalise the auction proceedings held on 26.7.2011 and shall proceed further against the petitioner for remaining dues. He vehemently argued that the amount was in fact realised on 10th August 2011.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the bank is contrary to the provision of section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. Learned counsel by placing reliance on the documents filed by the bank submits that the cheque which was deposited on 6.8.2011 was realised on 10.8.2011 and the documents further show that on 6.8.2011 the requisite amount was not in the account of M/s. Agri Commex Warehousing & Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

4. Per Contra, Shri Raju Sharma, learned counsel for the bank and Shri N.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the borrowers, submit that the amount was admittedly required to be deposited as per the settlement on 5.8.2011 but on 5.8.2011 there was an All India Strike of employees of State Bank of India and, therefore, on that date the amount could not be deposited. However, on 6.8.2011 an amount of Rs.1,36,058/- was deposited by way of transfer and an amount of Rs.1,04,00,000/- was deposited by way of cheques. They submit that the delay was unavoidable, inevitable and beyond the control of the parties because on 5.8.2011 there was an All India Strike. They further submit that there is no illegality in the action of the bank. Heavy reliance is placed on section 13 (8) of the SARFAESI Act, which reads as under:-

“13 (8) -- If the dues of the secured creditor together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred by him are tendered t