Summary
An auction purchaser sought writ relief because interim protection against re-auction had not been granted while his DRAT appeal remained pending. The High Court instead allowed fresh payment and directed confirmation, possession and perfection of title, effectively determining the substantive dispute. The Court held that this exceeded the scope of the proceedings and rendered the pending appeal infructuous. It set aside the High Court orders and directed the DRAT to decide the appeal independently, preferably within four months of receiving the order.
Issues
- Whether a challenge to non-grant of interim relief permitted final substantive auction relief while the statutory appeal remained pending.
- What forum should decide the purchaser’s challenge to the forfeiture order.
Held
- The writ proceedings concerned absence of interim relief pending the DRAT appeal. The merits of the DRT order affirming the Recovery Officer’s forfeiture decision were still to be determined in that appeal. (¶¶ 2.1, 3.2)
- By directing fresh deposit, confirmation of sale, possession and perfection of title, the High Court acted as if reviewing a final DRAT decision. It exceeded the scope of the pending controversy and left nothing substantive for the appellate tribunal to decide. (¶ 3.2-3.3)
- The High Court orders were quashed. The DRAT was directed to decide Appeal 91 of 2019 according to law and its own merits as early as possible, preferably within four months from receipt of the Supreme Court order. The Court did not decide the purchaser’s substantive entitlement or the validity of forfeiture. (¶ 4)
Result
Borrower’s appeals allowed to the stated extent; High Court orders set aside. DRAT to decide the pending appeal independently, preferably within four months of receiving the order. No costs.