HC has gone beyond the ambit of proceedings before it: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, in a recent case, held that while deciding upon the matter the High Court went beyond the scope and ambit of the proceedings that are going on before it &amp; therefore, the order the jurisdiction has been exceeded. This was held by the supreme court bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah &amp; Justice B.V. Nagarathna, in the matter of SRS Advertising &amp; Marketing Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Ors. v Mr. Kamal Garg &amp; Anr in CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1302­1303 OF 2022, decided on February 16,2022. The appeal arose from the grievance caused by the Delhi High Court’s order in Writ Petition (Civil) No.12530 of 2021 and in Review Petition No.197 of 2021.The petitioner has claimed that the High Court has erred in appreciating the facts of the case. The original petitioner was auction purchaser who purchased the property for a sum of 85 lakhs. The reserved price of the property was 54 lakhs, and the highest bid was made by the petitioner of Rs. 85 lakhs. After making the bid &amp; depositing the amount (22,25,000 [25% Bid price]), he moved an application to the Recovery officer for some clarity. The recovery officer dismissed the application &amp; forfeited 10% of the amount. The appeal was taken to DRT who dismissed it, which was then proceeded to DRAT challenging DRT’s order. The matter was taking to the High Court challenging interim relief not granted with regard to the auction. The High Court disposed off the petition granting, one more opportunity to the original petitioner to deposit the balance amount. The present appeal has been preferred by the original respondent. The facts and circumstance of the case were observed by the Supreme court. The court stated that the order of the High Court is unsustainable. The High Court’s order of disposing the petition is appeared as such that the court has considered DRAT’s decision. However, the order of DRAT deciding on DRT’s order is pending. Thus, it is clear that High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and has gone beyond the scope of proceedings before it. The order of the High Court was thus, quashed.
No.6 2016 which was in favour of the Corporation Bank now merged with the Union Bank of India) for a sum of of Rs.21 25 000 ­Respondent no.1 the original writ petitioner moved an application before the Recovery Officer seeking some clarity in the matter. The same was replied to by the Bank. However the petitioner on 28.11.2019 and forfeited 10% of the 2.1 Aggrieved by the order of the Recovery Officer Respondent No.1 herein had preferred an appeal being The said appeal came to be dismissed by the DRT­II vide relief to him and consequently Respondent ­ Bank herein application to seek interim relief from the DRAT was application would become infructuous Respondent No.1 herein preferred the present writ petition before the High Court. Though the appeal before the DRAT was pending and what was challenged before the High Court was with disposed of the writ petition by granting one further opportunity to the original writ petitioner to deposit the “13. In the aforesaid circumstances we grant is made in these terms the respondent bank shall proceed to deliver the possession of the is directed to release the 25% of the amount judgment and order passed by the High Court original respondent No.2 original borrower has preferred the 3. We have heard learned counsel for the respective 3.1 Having gone through the impugned judgment and Main appeal was yet to be considered by the DRAT on considering the final decision of the DRAT. The order passed by the DRT confirming the order passed by the Recovery Officer forfeiting 10% amount deposited by the auction purchaser was yet to be decided by the DRAT Therefore the High Court as such has gone beyond the infructuous as after the impugned judgment and order nothing further is required to be decided by the DRAT set aside. Now the DRAT to finally decide and dispose of Present appeals are accordingly Allowed to the