“Primarily, the second proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act imposes an obligation upon a person filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal cannot take advantage of the amount paid by other parties, except under certain circumstances. Say, for instance, the Bank was proceeding against the properties of a guarantor, after exhausting its remedies against the borrower and after recovering a portion of the debt due from the borrower. In cases of that nature, the very attempt of the Bank would only be to recover from the guarantor, the balance of the money due after appropriating the sale proceeds of the properties of the borrower. But in cases where the borrowers themselves are the appellants, they cannot claim the benefit of the money recovered through an auction, which itself had become the subject matter of challenge. A borrower who assails an auction conducted under the Act, as null and void, cannot take advantage of the amount recovered by the Bank through such an auction. If in the opinion of the borrower, an auction is invalid, it would not confer any benefit upon any of the parties, including the secured creditors and the auction purchaser. As a corollary, such an auction cannot confer a benefit upon the borrower. To put it upon the auction purchaser or the secured creditor, on account of being a nullity, cannot confer a benefit upon the borrower either. To show the sale process of the very auction that is assailed in an appeal, as a money recovered by the Bank, would tantamount to the proverbial act of eating the cake even while retaining it.”
