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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
