The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court upheld the validity of the auction proceedings and the entitlement to refund of the purchase price with interest, while rejecting the claim for compensation due to lack of specific prayer for it before the DRAT.

ORDER SUJOY PAUL, J. : – This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) dated 17-7-2013 (Annexure P-3) passed in S. A. No. 65/2010 and also the order dated 23-9-2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) whereby appeal of present petitioner was dismissed by giving stamp of approval to the order of DRT dated 17-7-2013.

2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the admitted facts are that an e-auction notice dated 1-4-2010 was published by respondent No. 1 for auctioning the property in question. The petitioner submitted his bid and was declared as successful bidder in the e-auction on 3-5-2010. Petitioner paid Rs. 61,11,111/- being an auction purchaser. On 10-5-2010, a sale certificate was executed in favour of the petitioner.

3. The mortgagor/private respondents herein filed S. A No. 65/2010 before the DRT challenging the auction proceedings. The present petitioner was put to notice. After hearing the parties, learned DRT by order dated 17-7-2013, set aside the auction proceedings and directed the Bank to refund the purchase price with interest to the petitioner.

4. Aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before DRAT. The other side was put to notice. After hearing the parties, by impugned order dated 23-9-2019 (Annexure P-5) the learned DRAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of learned DRT.

5. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for setting aside of both the orders passed by DRT and DRAT respectively and in addition, prayed for setting aside the notice dated 19-7-2021 sent by the Bank with further direction to the Bank to reimburse the amount of Rs. 68,48,906/- to the petitioner at FDR rate prevailing as on 10-5-2010. Lastly, petitioner has prayed for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- and cost of this litigation.

Contention of Petitioner : 6. Shri Kapil Duggal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a plain reading of order of learned DRT dated 17-7-2013 shows that the DRT interfered with auction proceedings on the following grounds –

“(i) Possession notice and ‘sale notice’ were issued cumulatively or in a composite manner whereas as per opinion of the DRT both should have been separately issued. (ii) Bank did not produce valuation report on record.”

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that no doubt, possession notice was required to be issued as per Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (2002 Rules) whereas sale notice was required to be separately issued under Rule 9 of the said Rules and issuance of two separate notices may be a statutory requirement, the mortgagor who complained before the DRT that two separate notices were not issued and only one composite notice was issued, was required to plead and prove as to what prejudice is caused to him if a composite notice was issued and two separate statutory notices as envisaged in Rule 8 and Rule 9 were not issued. In absence thereof, the learned DRT has mechanically interfered with the auction proceedings which is bad in law.

8. The Appellate Tribunal has committed similar error and did not deal with the aforesaid aspect. In support of his submission, Shri Duggal, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in L and T Housing Finance Limited vs. Trishul Developers and anr., (2020) 10 SCC 659 (Annexure-P/10). It is contended that if a composite notice was issued, the minimum expectation from the mortgagor was to show what substantial prejudice is caused to him by such an action of auction by the Bank. Both the Tribunals have miserably failed to consider this aspect and therefore both the orders have become vulnerable and deserve to be interfered with. It is argued that alternative prayer is regarding refund of purchase price along with compensation, interest and cost.

9. To bolster this submission, the attention of this Court is drawn to the o