DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI

Misc. Appeal No.256/2022

Arising out of TSA No.45/2022 (DRT-II, Delhi)

Union Bank of India

....... Appellant

VERSUS

Dheeraj Popli

....... Respondent

Date : 20.12.2022

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi, Chairperson

Appearance:

Mr. Janendra Lal, Ld. Counsel for appellant

Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Ld. Counsel for respondent

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed by the appellant bank

against the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by Ld. DRT-

II, Delhi in TSA No.45/2011 whereby Ld. DRT permitted

the SA applicant to participate in the e-auction without

depositing the EMD and without deciding the question

of forfeiture of the 25% auctioned amount deposited by

the respondent .The order dated 19.10.2022 runs as

under:-

<19.10.2022

2 of 14

Misc. Appeal 256/2022 – UBI vs. Dheeraj Popli

initiating sale certificate in the meantime.=

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present

appeal are that the appellant bank had granted certain

financial facilities (limits) to M/s. Chawla Agencies Ltd.

of Rajkot, Gujarat against the guarantees of its

proprietors Shri O.P. Chawla, Shri Prem Khurana and

Prem Khurana and Ashu Chawla. In order to secure the

repayment of the aforesaid financial facilities Shri Prem

Khurana and Smt. Satya Rani Khurana had mortgaged

their property bearing No.E-60, Block E, Bali Nagar,

Najafgarh Road, New Delhi with the appellant bank.

Due to failure on the part of the borrower in making

repayment, the account was classified as NPA and O.A.

No. 116/2016 filed by the appellant bank before the

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi for the recovery of

Rs.16,58,89,324.85.

3. It is submitted that the appellant bank has

proceeded under the SARFAESI Act against the

secured asset after complying with the provisions of

Sections 13(2), 13(3A), 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and

after repeated attempts of putting the property to

auction, the said property was put to sale by issuance of

a sale notice dated 6^th April, 2022. Since Mr. Prem

Khurana and other, guarantors/mortgagors, had filed an

S.A. against the action taken by the bank, which was

pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi, it

was mentioned in the sale notice that the auction would

be subject to the outcome of S.A. No.75 of 2016. It was

3 of 14

Misc. Appeal 256/2022 – UBI vs. Dheeraj Popli

provided in the sale notice that interested purchasers

should register themselves with the E auction web

portal mentioned therein, which would scrutinise the

KYC documents and other particulars and after being

satisfied, on completion of the verification, the intending

bidders/purchasers were required to pay EMD through

NEFT/RTGS/NET banking/UPI by generating a challan

through the website in their Global EMD Wallet.

Payment was required to be made within three days of

generating the challan for NEFT/RTGS, otherwise the

challan was to become invalid. It was stipulated that if

the EMD was not held in the Global Wallet, the

prospective bidder would not be allowed to participate in

the E Auction and payment of EMD in any other mode

would not be accepted. It was further provided that

after deposit of the amount in the Global Wallet, an

interested bidder would be entitled to have earmarked,

an EMD out of the wallet for any property which he may

identify on the list of properties to be sold, on that

particular date and inspection of the said property would

be available one day prior to the date of the auction.

Therefore, EMD could only be deposited through

NEFT/RTGS well in advance before the stipulated time.

It was, therefore, made clear that any person interested

could only bid through the E auction web portal and not

through the appellant directly. The said notice

contained the usual terms and conditions as per the

subsequent sale notice filed hereafter.

4. It is further submitted that in terms of the sale

notice, the respondent herein registered himself with