1. This order shall govern disposal of Writ Appeal No. 581/2011, State Bank of India and another v. M/s. Gaurav Enterprises and others and Writ Appeal No. 589/2011, Smt. Saroj Shivhare and others v. M/s. Gaurav Enterprises and others.

2. Both these appeals have been filed against the order dated 20.10.2011 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 54321 2011. [Reported in 2012 (I) MPWN 28]

3. M/s. Radhika Food Products had taken a loan from the State Bank of India. It could not repay the loan, hence, the bank proceeded against respondents No. 3 to 5, who are appellants in Writ Appeal No. 5891 2011, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. hereinafter referred to as the "SARF AESI Act". The Bank issued a notice for auction of the property, which was mortgaged with the Bank by respondent No.2, Smt. Saroj Shivhare, respondent No.3, Suresh Shivhare. An advertisement was published to this effect in the local news papers. The auction was held on 26.7.2011. Respondent No.1, M/s. Gaurav Enterprises, participated in the auction and his bid was highest of Rs. 1,00,21.777/-. He deposited Rs. 25,05.500/-, 25% of the bid amount. immediately with the State Bank of India. In the meanwhile the borrowers, i.e., respondents No. 3 to 5 filed a petition before this Court, which was registered as 4898/2011 and disposed of on the basis of settlement arrived at between the State Bank of India and borrowers respondents No.3 to 5. The writ Court passed the following order :-

“(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/- (Ruppes 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 5.8.2011 in full and final settlement. If the aforesaid amount is deposited by the petitioners on or before 5.8.20110 in that case, the respondent Bank shall not finalize the auction held on 26.7.2011 in regard to the petitioner's property and the loan account shall be closed.

(4) That, if the petitioner's, fail to deposit the aforesaid amount upto 5.8.2011 in that case, the said proposal shall proceed further against the petitioners for remaining dues."

4. On 16.8.2011, respondent No.1 M/s. Gaurav Enterprises, filed petition before this Court seeking a relief that respondent-Bank be directed to hand over possession of the property in auction to it and the Bank shall not hand over possession of the property to the borrowers, respondents No.3 to 5. That petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the respondent Bank is directed to hand over possession of the property to respondent, M/s. Gaurav Enterprises.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of appellants in both the appeals has contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is bad in law. The appellants in Writ Appeal No. 598/2011, borrowers, had already deposited the amount of Rs. 1,05.36,058/- on 6.8.2011 in accordance with the earlier order passed in writ petition No. 4898/20 II, hence the appellants in Writ Appeal No. 589/11 have a right to redeem the property in question because the amount has already been deposited with the Bank. It has further been submitted that there was no document of sale executed in favour of respondent, M/s. Gaurav Enterprises, hence, the mortgagee has a right to redeem the property because the loan amount has already been deposited with the Bank. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel relied on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. L.K. Trust v. EDC Ltd. and others, reported in AIR 2011 SC 2060.

6. Contrary to this, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 M/s. Ga