IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.742 of 2007 RAJA PARIKSHIT @ RAJA PARIKSHEET KUMAR Versus BANK OF BARODA & ORS ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Mukund Jee, Advocate For the respondents: M/s Ratnesh Nandan Sinha, Mithilesh Kr. Raj Virendra Kr. Roy, Alok Kr. Agrawal, Advocates. ------- Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --------- Dated, the 24th June, 2008 We heard the counsel for the parties. 2. Respondent nos. 4 to 6 ( for short ‘ the borrower’) filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the auction sale dated 11.11.2006 in favour of the present appellant (for short ‘the auction purchaser’) made by respondent nos. 1 to 3 (for short ‘the bank’). The auction sale was challenged on various grounds, inter alia, that it was in contravention of the interim order dated 11.9.2006 passed by this Court. The Single Judge was persuaded by the submission and held that the auction sale was bad in law. 3. Two relevant facts may be noticed here immediately; (i) that subsequent to the filing of the present appeal, the auction purchaser has withdrawn the purchase price from the bank and - 2 - (ii) that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 7.5.2008, a sum of Rupees thirteen lacs has been deposited by the borrower with the bank. One more fact that is important to be noticed here is that pursuant to the order dated 11.9.2006 passed by this Court in earlier writ application, the borrower has approached the appellate authority challenging the notice dated 30th August, 2006 demanding a sum of Rs.13,82,511 under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Rules framed thereunder. That the said appeal is pending before the appellate authority is not disputed by any of the parties. In the backdrop of these facts, the question that needs to be considered by us is: whether an interference is called for in the impugned order and any indulgence is required to be shown by us in the matter. 4. Since the appeal is pending before the appellate authority, we are of the considered view that the merits of the diverse contentions of the parties, need not be examined by us lest it must prejudice the consideration of the appeal by the appellate authority. Suffice it to say that about actual outstanding amount, there is a serious dispute between the bank and the borrower. According to the bank, although notice dated 30th August, 2006 reflected an outstanding amount of Rs.13,82,511/- but because of non payment of that amount by the borrower in time, interest has accrued thereon. As per the bank, as on February, 2008, a sum of Rs.20,71,901 was - 3 - outstanding against the borrower. Thereafter, pursuant to the order of this Court passed on 7th May, 2008, a sum of Rupees thirteen lacs came to be deposited by the borrower. Thus, the case of the bank is that as on date, an amount exceeding Rupees Seven lacs is outstanding against the borrower. On the other hand, the case of the borrower, as has been articulated by their Advocate, is that orally the bank agreed for discharge of the borrower’s liability in the sum of Rupees thirteen lacs and that is reflected in the Interlocutory Application ( I.A. No. 2345 of 2008) to which no reply has been filed by the bank. 5. Since there is dispute between the borrower and the bank about the exact outstanding amount and the appeal is pending before the appellate authority, this dispute has to be considered, examined and determined by the appellate authority. We would, however, like to notice that there is no order by the Court recording a fact that the bank had agreed to discharge the liability in the sum of Rupees thirteen lacs. 6. In so far as order of the Single Judge in declaring the auction sale bad in law, is concerned, we find no justification in interfering with the said order. It is pertinent to notice that in the earlier writ application filed by the borrower which was disposed of by the Single Judge on 11.9.2006, the following order came to be passed: - 4 - “In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and without going into the merit of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to move the appellate authority within two weeks from today for the reliefs claimed in this writ petition. It will also be open to him to file an application for an interim order of stay, which, if filed, will be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law within one week thereafter. In the facts and circumstances of this case, let there be an order of status quo till an order is passed on the interim application by the appellate authority. However, it may be specifically stated here that if the writ petitioners do not prefer an appeal within the above prescribed time, this order of status quo shall automatically stand cancelled.” 7. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the liberty granted by the Single Judge in his order dated 11.9.2006, the borrower preferred appeal before the appellate authority on 19.9.2006 and also made an application for interim relief. The order of status quo passed by the Single Judge admittedly was operative when the auction notice dated 5.10.2006 came to be issued by the bank. How could bank issue auction notice on 5.10.2006 when the order of status quo was operative. Although the application for stay was rejected by the appellate authority on 10.11.2006 and the auction was held on 11.11.2006 but the fact of the matter is that auction was held pursuant to notice dated 5.10.2006 when no such notice could have been issued because an order of status quo passed by the Single Judge of - 5 - this Court was operative. We find that there is no infirmity in the order of the Single Judge setting aside the auction sale dated 11.11.2006. Moreover, as we have indicated above the auction purchaser has already withdrawn the amount deposited by him towards purchase price. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of. 9. All contentions of the parties, namely, the borrower and the bank, are kept open to be agitated before the appellate authority. 10. This disposes of all pending interim applications also. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/