A tribunal cannot grant the substantive relief sought in a main application at an interim stage, as it constitutes final disposal without full adjudication. Furthermore, any order affecting the rights of a third party requires that party to be heard.

This order shall dispose of the Misc. Appeal No. 51/2026 filed by the Appellant/Bank against the order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Mumbai on the I.A. No. 3140/2025 of the Respondents/Borrowers.

2. By the impugned order, the DRT-III, Mumbai quashed the auction notice dated 26.09.2025 and set aside the auction conducted on 16.10.2025 and further directed the Appellant/Bank to return the amount paid by the Auction Purchaser within one month from the date of the order failing which the Appellant/Bank would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum.

3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that the Respondents/Borrowers had filed S.A. No. 540/2023 challenging the auction proceedings.

In the said S.A., an I.A. No. 3140/2025 was filed seeking the relief, inter alia, quash and set aside the Auction Sale Notice dated 26.09.2025 and the auction scheduled to be conducted on 16.10.2025.

By the impugned order, the Learned DRT-III, Mumbai allowed the said Interim Application. Aggrieved from the same the present appeal by Appellant/Bank is filed.

4. Heard.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Bank would submit that the Respondents/Borrowers are creating hurdles not only by failing to repay the borrowed amount due to Appellant/Bank, but are also obstructing the process of realization of the legally recoverable dues by way of auction of the secured assets in accordance with law; that, first six attempts to auction the secured assets had failed and that the present auction was the seventh attempt in which the Respondents/Borrowers have raised unnecessary and untenable objections.

He would further submit that the Learned DRT-III, Mumbai has passed the impugned order beyond its jurisdiction and committed an error of law in allowing the Interim Application and quashing the Auction Sale Notice dated 26.09.2025.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Bank would further submit that the Respondents/Borrowers were aware that the secured asset property had already been sold in the auction, therefore, the Auction-Purchaser ought to have been impleaded as a party to the S.A; that, impugned order is bad in law and unsustainable; that, the Appellant/Bank has a good case on merits, therefore, impugned order has caused serious prejudice to the Appellant/Bank; that, the DRT- III, Mumbai failed to appreciate that this was the seventh attempt to auction the secured asset, therefore, the Appellant/Bank was only required to issue a fresh notice of 15 days in advance for the scheduled auction; that, Ld. DRT-III, Mumbai failed to appreciate that the Respondents/Borrowers had not established any prejudice allegedly caused to them on account of the auction proceedings.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Borrowers would support the impugned order and would submit that Respondents/Borrowers have preferred a review application before the Learned DRT-III, Mumbai in respect of the direction contained in the impugned order requiring the Respondents/Borrowers to pay ₹10 crores to the Appellant/Bank.

He would further argue that the valuation conducted by the Appellant/Bank was not in accordance with law; that, a Financial Institution is required to obtain a fresh valuation report of the secured asset before putting the same for auction for realization of the outstanding dues under the loan agreement; that, the auction in the present case was conducted in the year 2025, whereas the valuation repor