The Allahabad High Court disposed of Regular Appeal No. 06/2022 concerning the Bank of Baroda and an Auction Purchaser. The court held that a prior Apex Court judgment in Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries applies, rejecting the appellant's argument that a waiver of deposit was warranted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Regular Appeal No. 06/2022 Date: 20.02.2024
Sunil Soni & Ors. Vs. Bank of Baroda
Present: Shri V. K. Shukla, counsel for the appellants, Shri Avinash Jaiswal, counsel for the respondent-Bank, Shri Vikas Rathi, counsel for the respondent-Auction Purchaser,
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this court to the order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in writ petition no. 26438 of 2023 and has submitted that in the said order, it has been observed that inspite of availing the alternative remedy and depositing the statutory deposit of more than 30%, the DRAT, Allahabad is not deciding the appeal, therefore, direction be issued to the DRAT, Allahabad to decide the securitization appeal expeditiously. It is also contended that in view of the said order, as 30% of the amount due has already been deposited, no further deposit is required and the appeal may be decided on merits.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Auction Purchaser contends that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8969 of 2022- M/s Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Private Limited & Another Vs. Prudent ARC Limited & Others decided on 05.01.2023, in which the present appellants were also party, had categorically observed in para 17 that the borrower has to deposit 50% of the amount of debt due as claimed by the bank/financial institution/assignee along with interest as claimed in the notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the borrower is not entitled to claim adjustment/appropriation of the amount realized by selling the secured properties and deposited by the auction
purchaser, when the auction sale is also under challenge. It is further contended that two appeals bearing Regular Appeal No. 08/2022 and Regular Appeal No. 07/2022 filed by the appellants have been dismissed by this Tribunal vide orders dated 04.07.2023, in which similar question was involved as in the present case.
The learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court as mentioned above will not apply to the present case, as there is no debt due in the present case since the property in question has been auctioned and full amount has been realized by the bank. It is, therefore, prayed that the waiver application may be allowed and the appeal may be heard on merits.
After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this court is of the opinion that the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of M/s Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Private Limited Vs. Prudent ARC Limited (Supra), in which the appellants were also parties, shall apply to the present case, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is in contravention of the said judgment, hence the appeal is dismissed.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
Anupam
1 issue framed by the court
Whether appeals filed by the appellants are to be allowed despite the High Court's direction regarding deposits and decision-making delays.
Sunil Soni & Ors.
Bank of Baroda
Auction Purchaser
R. D. Khare
Anupam
As recorded by the court registry
10 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
