- (1.) On hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have not the slightest doubt that the respondent No.1 has been a defaulter in adhering to the financial discipline of the bank, which in turn resulted in the mortgaged property being auctioned and the petitioner coming in as an auction purchaser. For the last 6 years the matter has thereafter dragged on with multiple proceedings to this Court.
(2.) In the conspectus of the aforesaid, we have examined the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition Nos. 31295 and 31296 of 2017 and 1829 and 1830 of 2018 along with WMP No. 34277 of 2017 dated 10.06.2019. This order attained finality by dismissal of the SLP preferred by the respondent. The operative paragraph of that order is as under : "Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion to the rate of interest fixed by the Debt recovery Appellate Tribunal at 10% from 6% to that of interest fixed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal is also meager and it is modified to 12% simple interest to be paid by the petitioner Trust. Petitioner shall pay the remaining amount, calculating interest from the date on which auction purchaser made deposit i.e., from 26.09.2014 on Rs. 75,00,000/- and from 30.09.2014 on Rs. 1,15,00,000/- and from 13.10.2014 on Rs. 5,68,51,000/- the above payment shall be made by petitioner Trust in WP Nos. 31295 and 31296 of 2017, with period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which, the auction purchaser is entitled to get the possession of the property and consequently the certify holder is entitled for appropriation of the sale profit arising out of the sale held on 30.09.2014. " Despite the aforesaid indulgence, the respondent No. 1 was still a defaulter and did not comply with the order resulting in the proceedings of execution by the petitioner before the Recovery Officer resulting in a favourable order for the petitioner to get possession of the mortgaged property. The order was assailed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal which met the same fate. Thereafter instead of assailing the order before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the respondent No. 1 filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court which has resulted in the impugned order dated 10.03.2021. Suffice to say that in paragraph 22, there is a categorical finding that there was no error committed by the forums below and thus the respondent No. 1 (petitioner therein) was not entitled to any relief. Thereafter, the discussion proceeds on the basis of "other way of looking " largely in view of the fact that the respondent No. 1 was running an educational institution. The net effect of this was that time was granted till 31.03.2021 to make the deposit (which has since been made). Simultaneously, in the last paragraph, the respondent No. 1 before us was directed to pay costs to the petitioner of Rs. 5 lakh on account of the vexation process through which the auction purchaser, the petitioner, had to go through from 2015 till the date of the order.
(3.) We have bestowed our consideration in the aforesaid context on the relevant pleas advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. In substance, the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the finding was reached against the respondent No. 1 on there being no error in the impugned orders, Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not give the right to the Court to proceed further on the principles of the stated equity and such kind of process was available only before this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.;