Ashok Menon, Chairperson
1. The 4th Respondent in Appeal (D) No. 2208 of 2023 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai (D.R.T.) is aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2023 setting aside the order of the Recovery Officer (R.O) dated 19.10.2023 in Recovery Proceedings No. 02 of 2023 in Original Application (O.A.) No. 162 of 2002.
2. The Appellant in the aforesaid appeal before the D.R.T. is the successful bidder of the subject property and the entire sale consideration of ₹359.05 crores and poundage fee of ₹3,59,06,000/-has been paid. Despite having done so, the sale is yet to be confirmed and the sale certificate issued. The sale was conducted on 28.08.2023 and the amount was deposited on 13.09.2023. Despite that, certain fresh bidders have come vying to purchase the property for a higher amount. The R.O. directed all of them to deposit 10% of the amount and the confirmation was postponed. The Ld. Presiding Officer had earlier given directions to proceed with the sale and had also set aside a corrigendum to postpone the sale. Though the sale was conducted and the entire sale price deposited, the issuance of the sale certificate is still awaited. The auction bidder was aggrieved and hence, approached the Ld. Presiding Officer for reliefs in the appeal under Sec. 30 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993(‘RDB Act”, for short), which was allowed. The sale certificate could therefore be issued. The Appellant is aggrieved and hence, in appeal.
3. The Appellant herein is also intending to purchase the subject property but his belated bid for the property was not accepted by the R.O. and therefore, the Appellant had earlier approached this Tribunal with an Appeal at Diary No. 1582 of 2023. The said appeal was disposed of with the liberty to approach the D.R.T. with an appeal under Sec. 30 of the RDB Act. I am told that the appeal has been filed and is pending consideration before the D.R.T.
4. The Appellant had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay with Writ Petition (L) No. 33129 of 2023 and vide order dated 30.11.2023 the Writ Petition was disposed of by clarifying that if the sale is confirmed by the R.O., the same shall be subject to the outcome of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the DRAT.
5. The apprehension of the Appellant that once the sale is confirmed there would be no remedy left, is misplaced. Admittedly,
the Appellant has filed an appeal under Sec. 30 challenging the improper rejection of its bid. The sale would, therefore, be subject to the decision taken by the D.R.T. in that appeal. There is no need for any interim orders to stall the issuance of the sale certificate in favour of the successful bidder.
The application is, therefore, dismissed.
