IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

th

ON THE 8 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 10385 of 2013 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Versus SHRI SAKHROO RAM AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rajesh Maindiretta - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Siddharth Sharma & Shubham Manchani and Shri Devendra Kumar Prajapati - Advocate for respondent No.4.

ORDER Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal The petitioner / Bank has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2013 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “DRAT”), whereby the order dated 25.04.2012 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as “DRT”) in S.A. No. 70/2009 has been set aside and the petitioner Bank has been directed to issue a sale certificate in favour of respondent nos. 1 to 3 auction purchaser.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the petitioner Bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2002”) against respondent no. 4 – Shri Atul Anand borrower. The said action was challenged by respondent no. 4 by filing Securitisation Application No. 70/2009 before the DRT on 6/5/09, Jabalpur, wherein an interim order dated 22/5/09, directing maintenance of status quo was passed. 3. Before filing of the securitisation application, the Bank issued an auction notice dated 21.04.2009 for sale of the secured asset, fixing the auction on 27.04.2009 with a reserve price of Rs. 27.00 lakh. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 participated in the auction and submitted a bid of Rs. 27.15 lakh as against the outstanding dues of Rs. 40,95,384/-. The entire bid amount was deposited by respondent nos. 1 to 3. However, due to the subsisting interim order of status quo passed by the DRT, neither the sale certificate was issued nor possession of the property was handed over.

4. The OTS tender of respondent nos. 1 to 3 was accepted by the petitioner Bank vide letter dated 28.04.2009, wherein it was specifically stated that the acceptance of sale was subject to confirmation by the Bank as secured creditor. The bidders were directed to deposit 25% of the sale amount and the balance on or before

14.05.2009.

5. During pendency of the securitisation application, respondent no. 4 approached the petitioner Bank with a proposal for settlement. Since the sale had not been confirmed, the Bank accepted the settlement for a sum of Rs. 68.14 lakh, which amount was deposited by respondent no. 4, thereby liquidating the entire outstanding dues.

6. The DRT, Jabalpur, vide judgment dated 25.04.2012, took note of the settlement arrived at between the Bank and respondent no. 4 and permitted respondent no. 4 to settle the dues. The Bank was directed to release the title deeds after receipt of the settlement amount. To compensate respondent nos. 1 to 3, the DRT further directed payment of interest @ 7.5% per annum on the amount of Rs. 27.15 lakh, along with costs of proceedings.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the DRAT, Allahabad has committed a grave error in law and on facts in holding that the sale stood confirmed merely because the entire bid amount was deposited by respondent nos. 1 to 3. It is contended that mere issuance of a letter accepting the bid does not confer any vested right upon the bidder, particularly when the acceptance letter itself categorically stipulated that the sale was subject to confirmation by the Bank. Learned counsel further submits that in the present case the sale was never confirmed, and no sale certificate was issued due to the subsisting order of status quo passed by the DRT, Jabalpur. It is urged that the DRAT, Allahabad failed to appreciate the settled legal position that the right of an auction purchaser accrues only upon confirmati