Gujarat High Court
Vanraj Aljibhai Chavda S/O Aljibhai ... vs The Authorised Officer, Zonal Stressed ... on 25 July, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3869/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3869 of
2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 890 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 890 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1916 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2025 In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 890 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1916 of 2025
==========================================================
VANRAJ ALJIBHAI CHAVDA S/O ALJIBHAI CHAVDA
Versus
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, ZONAL STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY
BRANCH & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
BHASKAR SHARMA(9209) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DEVANG D TRIVEDI(2503) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 25/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3869 of 2025:-
Mr. Vanraj Aljibhai Chavda has appeared as a Party in Person. Mr. Devang D. Trivedi, learned advocate appears for Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:26:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3869/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined respondent no.2.
No plausible objection has been taken to the delay of 07 days in filing the instant appeal. The delay has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. The Office shall allot the regular number to the appeal.
ORDER IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL:-
1. This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, wherein the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Misc. Appeal No.89 of 2023 was subjected to challenge, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant/ original petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The original petitioner/ appellant herein is the auction purchaser. As noted by the learned Single Judge and is evident from the record of the present appeal, the petitioner herein being the auction purchaser was respondent no.9 in Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:26:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3869/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined Securitization Application No.214 filed by the borrower. The petitioner filed an application Exh.R/38 on 02.01.2023 with the prayer for refund of the amount of Rs.46,23,000=00 alongwith interest at the rate of 10%, which was the sale consideration paid by him to the respondent - bank, in the auction of the secured assets held on 18.11.2020. From perusal of the order dated 05.01.2023 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in Securitization Application No.214 of 2020, it may be noted that :-
"It appears from the perusal of file that though, no specific date of deposition of sale consideration of Rs. 46,23,000.00 has been alleged in his application Exh R/38 by respondent no.9 and no specific proof of deposition of the above money has been filed before this Tribunal, however, as the sale certificate has been issued in favour of respondent no.9 by respondent no.1 on 17.12.2020, it may be inferred from the circumstances that in an auction of disputed property on 18.11.2020, it should have been deposited between 18.11.2020 to 17.12.2020.
Further, as factum of deposition of sale consideration has not been disputed by the respondent no.1 bank and Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank submitted that bank has no objection in refunding the above sale consideration to respondent no.9, in view of the Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:26:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3869/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined preposition of law that 'facts admitted need not be proved,' it appears to be proper and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of submissions of both the learned parties that the sale consideration of Rs. 46,23,000.00 should be refunded to the respondent no.9 as per law, after completing all the formalities of cancelling sale certificate etc, if any. So far as, payment of interest on above money is concerned, though respondent has himself participated and purchased the disputed property in auction and respondent bank could not proceed further in view of the order dated 19.12.2020 passed by this Tribunal, however, the fact remains that respondent no.1 has been using the above money since the date of its deposition till now.
Hence, in these circumstances, it appears just and proper, in the interest of justice, to direct the respondent bank, not only to refund the above amount of Rs. 46,23,000.00, but also to pay interest at the rate, which is payable on fixed deposit scheme of the respondent bank from time to time, during the date of its deposition till the date of payment to respondent no. 9, in accordance with law after completing all the legal formalities of cancellation of sale certificate etc, if any.
The above interim application Exh R/38 deserves to be disposed off in the light of above observations and Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:26:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3869/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined directions to the respondent no.1 bank to refund the money along with interest as mentioned above, to respondent no. 9, within 15 days.
Order accordingly.
Put up the matter for hearing on SA on 03.02.2023."
3. It seems that after disposal of the said application, a review/ recall application was filed by the auction purchaser as Exh.R/43 for recalling the order dated 05.01.2023. The said application has been rejected vide order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal on the ground that the sale certificate was cancelled at the instance of the auction purchaser namely respondent no.9 himself, when he sought refund of the sale consideration alongwith the interest as enumerated in the order dated 05.01.2023, on the directions of the tribunal, wherein the respondent - bank was directed to refund sale consideration after completing all legal formalities such as cancellation of sale certificate etc. The review application was, thus, rejected as not maintainable being beyond the scope of review/recall.
4. This order was further challenged before the Debt Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:26:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3869/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined Recovery Appellate Tribunal which has dismissed the appeal vide order dated 27.11.2024, subject matter of challenge before the writ Court. The appellate tribunal while dismissing the appeal has noted that the application for review/recall was not sustainable because the prayer made therein was not to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record rather it was for seeking relief of handing over possession of the secured assets. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal could not have granted such relief, inasmuch as, no inherent power under Section-151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was available with the tribunal and Section 22 of the RDB Act does not confer any such power to the tribunal.
5. We may record that the only relief sought by the petitioner/ appellant herein before the writ Court was to quash and set aside the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and there was no challenge to the order dated 21.04.2023 of dismissal of the review application by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The further prayer made in the writ petition was to direct the respondent no.1 - bank to receive or to take back the amount of sale proceeds which had been refunded to the petitioner on 30.12.2024 in Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:26:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3869/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined compliance of the order dated 05.01.2023 and further to grant possession of the secured assets to the petitioner.
6. The basis of seeking such relief before the writ Court was that the Securitization Application namely S.A. No.214 of 2020 has been dismissed finally vide order dated 03.08.2024 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, due to non-appearance and non-prosecution by the applicants. The contention of the Party-in-Person before the writ Court and before us is that with the dismissal of the securitization application, finally, the interim order dated 05.01.2023 passed on the application filed by the petitioner herein stood merged in the final order and it cannot survive on its own. The refund of the sale proceeds in compliance of the order dated 05.01.2023 has been given to the petitioner on 30.12.2024, by the respondent no.1 - bank, much after the dismissal of the securitization application. For the reason that the securitization application itself was dismissed prior to the compliance of the order dated 05.01.2023 of refund of the sale consideration, the auction sale held on 18.11.2020 in favour of the petitioner herein stood confirmed. The submission is that there is no option for the respondent no.1 - bank, but to hand over the possession of Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:26:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3869/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined the secured assets sold in favour of the petitioner in the auction sale held on 18.11.2020, after dismissal of the securitization application namely S.A. No.214 of 2020 filed by the borrower.
7. Considering this submission made by the Party-in-Person namely the appellant herein, suffice is to note that the order dated 05.01.2023 for refund of the sale consideration was passed on the application filed by the petitioner himself/appellant herein. On the directions issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in the order dated 05.01.2023 accepting the request of the petitioner for refund of the entire sale consideration alongwith the interest, the sale certificate has already been cancelled and the entire sale consideration has been refunded to the petitioner on 30.12.2024. In the said scenario, there is no question of revival of the sale which was held on 18.11.2020, with the dismissal of the securitization application filed by the borrower on 03.08.2024 by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. All submissions made by the petitioner/ appellant herein to assail the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and further to press the prayers made in the writ petition are found to be Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:26:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3869/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined untenable.
8. No infirmity can be found in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in holding that the prayers made in review/ recall application seeking for recall of the order dated 05.01.2023 could not have been granted.
9. We may further record that the order dated 05.01.2023 has wrongly been termed as an interim order by the petitioner/ appellant herein, inasmuch as, it was a final order of disposal of the application filed by the petitioner, namely the auction purchaser and the said order has attained finality further with its implementation insofar as the petitioner and the respondent no.1 - bank are concerned. The order of dismissal of the securitization application of the borrower will be an issue only between the borrower and the bank after the auction purchaser is out of picture.
10. With the above, the submissions made on the doctrine of merger would be untenable. The further submissions made by the Party-in-Person seeking for higher rate of interest on the refunded amount or additional compensation, are liable to be Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:26:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3869/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined rejected as misconceived.
11. The present appeal stands dismissed, accordingly. No order as to costs. Consequently, the Civil Application for Joining Party would not survive and the same is rejected.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:26:18 IST 2025