SRS Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Kamal Garg & Anr.
Background
Respondent No.1 was the highest bidder (Rs. 85 lakhs) in an auction of properties held to recover dues under a Recovery Certificate in favour of a bank. After the Recovery Officer forfeited 10% of his deposit and rejected his application, his appeals before the DRT and then the DRAT (Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal) were unsuccessful in getting interim relief, so he filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the denial of interim relief pending his DRAT appeal. Instead of ruling only on the interim relief question, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the auction purchaser to deposit the balance amount plus damages and directing the bank to hand over possession: effectively deciding the whole matter. The original borrower (Respondent No.2 before the High Court) appealed to the Supreme Court against this order.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction because the writ petition before it was confined to the question of interim relief pending the DRAT appeal, while the main appeal challenging the forfeiture order was still pending before the DRAT on merits. By passing final directions as though it were deciding the whole dispute, the High Court had effectively rendered the pending DRAT appeal infructuous. The Court therefore quashed the High Court's order and remitted the matter, directing the DRAT to decide the pending appeal on its own merits within four months.
Lesson Learnt
A court or tribunal must confine itself to the specific relief actually under challenge before it: a High Court cannot use a writ petition limited to an interim-relief question as an occasion to finally decide the underlying dispute that is still pending before the appropriate tribunal.