Bombay High Court
Aarti S. Gunjikar vs Idbi Bank Ltd. on 23 April, 2026
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2026:BHC-OS:11542-DB
1/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3355 OF 2026
Aarti S. Gunjikar,
Aged 60 years, B-407, Murli
Govind, 33rd Road, Khar West
Mumbai 400054 .. Petitioner
Versus
1. IDBI Bank Ltd.
Retail Recovery, 2nd Floor,
Mittal Court, C Wing, Nariman
Point Mumbai 4000021
2. M/s. Saikrupa Exports & Ors.
Prop. Pramod Jiojode, 201,
Thakkar Palace, Jankalyan
Nagar, Malad (W), Mumbai
400064
3. Aparna Parab,
201, Thakkar Palace, Jankalyan
Nagar, Malad (W), Mumbai
400064
4. Neeta Dame
201, Thakkar Palace, Jankalyan
Nagar, Malad (W), Mumbai
400064
5. Shailvi Shah
Flat No. 1602, 16th Floor, W-54
Plot No. 123, Bal Govindas
Road, Mahim, Mumbai - 400016
6. Ld. Chairperson DRAT,
DRAT, Telephone Bhavan,
Colaba, Mumbai-400005
Digitally
signed by
RUSHIKESH
7. Ld. Presiding Officer,
RUSHIKESH VISHNU
VISHNU
PATIL
PATIL
Date:
DRT II, Telephone Bhavan,
2026.05.05
17:22:34
+0530 Colaba, Mumbai-400005
Rushikesh
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 :::
2/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt
8. Ld. Recovery Officer,
DRT II, Telephone Bhavan,
Colaba, Mumbai - 400005
9. Shyam Patil,
201, Thakkar Palace,
Janakalyan Nagar, Malad,
Mumbai - 400064 .. Respondents
...
Ms Aarti Gunjikar, Petitioner-in-person.
Ms Ridhi Jhaveri a/w Mr. Pratik Kadam i/by Singhania Legal
Services, for Respondent No. 1-Bank.
Ms Kajal Punjabi a/w Mr. Nilesh Bamne and Mr. Chetan
Mhatre i/by Mr. Chetan Mhatre, for Respondent No. 4.
...
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED: 23rd APRIL, 2026 Judgment : [Per Manjusha Deshpande, J.]:
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner is an unsuccessful bidder in the auction conducted by Recovery Officer (R.O.), DRT-II, Mumbai for purchase of a Flat No. A/3, 1st Floor, Geeta Ghar CHS Ltd., Off T H Kataria Marg, Mahim, Mumbai- 400016, in an auction in recovery proceedings.
The Petitioner challenges the order passed by the DRAT, Mumbai (I/c Chairperson, Mumbai sitting at Chennai) in Rushikesh ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 ::: 3/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt Regular Appeal No. 75 of 2025, dismissing the Appeal of the Petitioner vide order dated 21.01.2026, thereby upholding the order passed by the DRT-II, Mumbai, dated 29.04.2025, holding that the auction procedure adopted by the Recovery Officer on 27.10.2022, was absolutely in accordance with law, and the Petitioner's bid has been rightly disqualified for non- compliance of Term No. 4 of the Sale Proclamation Notice.
3. The brief facts culminating into the impugned order can be summarized as follows:
The Petitioner participated in the auction conducted by the Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Mumbai for purchase of a flat and submitted her bid in a sealed envelope on 19.10.2022.
On 25.10.2022, the Recovery Officer passed an order disqualifying the Petitioner alongwith the two other bidders on technical ground holding that the bid was not submitted in a sealed envelope; the date on the Demand Draft did not match in the bid form and the branch name is not filled in the bid form. All these disqualifying grounds, according to the Petitioner are factually incorrect. Similarly, the order of the Recovery Officer declaring Respondent No. 5 as a successful auction purchaser at a reserve price of Rs.1,29,00,000/- is illegal and arbitrary.
Rushikesh
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 :::
4/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt
During the pendency of the Appeal before the Presiding Officer, DRT-II, the Petitioner has voluntarily offered to deposit the purchase price of the flat to show her bona fides. In furtherance on the permission granted, the Petitioner deposited total amount of Rs.1,40,00,000/-.
On depositing the amount in the DRT-II, Mumbai, the Presiding Officer passed an interim order restraining the Recovery Officer from taking any further steps pursuant to the auction. The said interim order was continued from time to time. However, Appeal No. 16 of 2022 filed by the Petitioner before the DRT-II, Mumbai has been eventually rejected by the learned Presiding Officer, vide order dated 29.04.2025.
Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of her Appeal, she presented Second Appeal before the DRAT, Mumbai (Sitting at Chennai) in Regular Appeal No. 75 of 2025. This Appeal filed by the Petitioner has been heard finally and decided vide order dated 21.01.2026. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the DRAT, Mumbai, the Petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the orders passed by the DRT-II, Mumbai dated 29.04.2025 in Appeal No. 16 of 2022, as well as the order of DRAT, Mumbai (Sitting in Chennai) dated 21.01.2026 in Regular Appeal No. 75 of 2025, with further directions to the Rushikesh ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 ::: 5/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Mumbai, to declare the Petitioner as successful auction purchaser of the said flat and to issue sale certificate in her favour in accordance with the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short "the RDB Act, 1993").
In the alternate, without prejudice to the prayer clause
(b) to issue an order, to refund the Court fee of Rs.29,750/- taken by the DRT-II as Petitioner is not a borrower and restrain the Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Mumbai from taking any further steps pursuant to the order dated 27.10.2022, with certain other incidental prayers.
4. The Petitioner who appears in-person, challenges impugned orders on the ground that although she had submitted the required documents prior to the last date of submission on 19.10.2022 itself, in a sealed envelope in the inward of the Registry of DRT-II, Mumbai, and has also uploaded the required documents with the 'Auction Tiger' with online offer and obtained the login ID and password on 19.10.2022 itself, which according to her, was sufficient to be qualified, as a bidder for participating in the auction.
She submits that, on the scheduled day of auction on 27.10.2022 between 02:00 to 03:00 p.m., she was unable to Rushikesh ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 ::: 6/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt participate in the online auction till 02:15 p.m. On repeated calls to the portal provider of Auction Tiger's office, she was informed that she has been disqualified from participating in the auction by the Recovery Officer. It is her grievance that, she had not been informed about her disqualification by the Bank. She came to know about her disqualification only when she was unable to login in the auction process. Although she made an attempt to participate in the auction, however she was unable to obtain information from the officials. Since no information was received in response to her communication seeking reasons for her disqualification. She applied for certified copies of Rojnama of the Recovery Proceeding No. 34 of 2013. On receiving the certified copy of the Rojnama, it was disclosed that the reason for her disqualification recorded was as follows: "Bid submited by Aarti S Gunjikar, is not in compliance with Term No. 4 of the sale notice. The Bid form was not submitted in sealed envelope. Date of Demand draft does not match with the intimation filled up in the Bid Form, Branch name column is not filled up...". According to her, there is no substance in the grounds of her disqualification for the reason that, she had, in fact, submitted her bid in a sealed envelope. The date of remittance was also 19.10.2022, and Rushikesh ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 ::: 7/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt same is stated in the bid that was submitted to the office of DRT-II.
5. Even the objection regarding failure to mention the branch name of the Bank is also incorrect, since she had stated the Branch name as IDFC Bank, Kandivali (East), in the appropriate column. Thus, it is submitted that, her bid has been rejected on frivolous grounds, which indicates the ulterior motive, to sell the property at a reserve price, to a single bidder without competition. She alleges collusion between the concerned parties, which, according to her, is in blatant violation of rules and ethical standards.
6. It is submitted that, in the proceedings before the DRT-II, Mumbai, the then Presiding Officer directed her to establish her bona fide by depositing the requisite amount. In compliance thereto, she submitted an offer of Rs.1,40,00,000/- and, accordingly, deposited it in the Registry of DRT-II, Mumbai. This, according to her, exceeds the sale price, which is offered by the successful bidder, i.e. Respondent No. 5 by a sum of Rs.11,00,000/-. On depositing the said amount, the Recovery Officer has been restrained from taking any further steps by the Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Mumbai.
7. It is also submitted that, the amount of Rs. 1,40,00,000/-
Rushikesh
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 :::
8/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt
deposited by her continued to lie with the Registrar, DRT-II, Mumbai, for over a period of two and half years without confirming the sale. However, eventually, the proceedings before the DRT-II, Mumbai have been decided, vide order dated 29.04.2025, confirming the order of the Recovery Officer dated 27.10.2022, passed in Recovery Proceeding No. 34 of 2013, in Original Application No. 1036 of 2012, thereby dismissing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner. Even her Regular Appeal No. 75 of 2025, which was filed before the DRAT, Mumbai has been wrongly dismissed by the DRAT, without appreciating that, she has been wrongly disqualified from participating in the auction process by the Recovery Officer. She was not allowed to participate in the auction process on wholly frivolous and untenable technical grounds.
It is the contention of the Petitioner Ms Gunjikar that, the Recovery Officers are acting in collusion with the bidders of their choice and conspiring in favour of a single bidder, which needs to be condemned, as this act tarnishes the sanctity and trust of the recovery proceedings.
8. According to the Petitioner, she has deposited 100% bid amount within one month as provided in Section 30(1) and (2) of the RDB Act, 1993, by depositing Rs.1,40,00,000/- for the Rushikesh ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 ::: 9/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt said flat. Therefore, as provided under Sections 20, 30(1)(2), 30A of the RDB Act, 1993 , the Presiding Officer ought to have confirmed the sale in favour of the Petitioner. The amount deposited by the Petitioner has been lying in the Registry of DRT-II for more than 2 years and 7 months, which is in serious violation of Section 20(6) of the RDB Act, 1993, which mandates to dispose of the the Appeal finally within a period of six months from the date of filing. Thus, according to her, none of the grounds disqualifying her bid are valid, therefore, the order dated 27.10.2022, declaring Respondent No. 5 as successful bidder is required to be set aside, by declaring the Petitioner as a successful bidder.
9. Ms Ridhi Jhaveri, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1-Bank submits that the Writ Petition is not maintainable, since it seek to challenge the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two judicial forums. The Petitioner has failed to establish any jurisdictional error or violation of principles of natural justice, that would warrant any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Bank had issued E-Auction notice on 06.09.2022 for sale of Flat No.A/3, Geeta Ghar, Co-operative Housing Society, Mahim, Mumbai for recovery of outstanding Rushikesh ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 ::: 10/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt dues of approximately Rs.4,39,18,717/-. The auction was conducted under the supervision of the Recovery Officer, DRT- II, Mumbai. The Petitioner participated in the bidding process on 19.10.2022, the scrutiny of the bid document submitted by the Petitioner, disclosed that the Petitioner's bid was technically defective and non-responsive. The bid form was not in a sealed envelope; the date mentioned in the Demand Draft for earnest money deposit did not match with the details provided in the bid form, and branch name of the bank issuing the Demand Draft was left blank. Therefore, in view of the defective bid form, the Petitioner alongwith two other bidders was declared as disqualified.
According to her, the scrutiny of the bid documents is the prerogative of Recovery Officer under the RDB Act, 1993. The portal provider only facilitates digital entry, whereas "responsive" nature of bid depends on the physical verification sealed envelope and the forms. The Petitioner is trying to create a false narrative of bias. The allegation of collusion has been outrightly denied contending that, the sale to a sole responsive bidder at reserve price is legally recognized outcome, when only one bidder is found to be compliant.
So far as deposit of Rs.1,40,00,000/- by the Petitioner is Rushikesh ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 ::: 11/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt concerned, it is submitted that it was an attempt by her to persuade the Court to overlook her technical defaults. The Petitioner never acquired the status of a qualified bidder, therefore, her claim is non-existent in eyes of law. Both the Authorities i.e., the DRT and DRAT have rightly rejected the claim of the Petitioner.
As regards the amount deposited by the Petitioner is concerned, the Presiding Officer, DRT-II has already held her entitled to receive the amount of Rs.1,27,00,000/- with interest, if any. Therefore, according to him, there is no substance in the challenge raised by the Petitioner and the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.
10. The Respondent No. 5, who is represented by learned counsel, Ms Kajal Punjabi, has vehemently opposed the prayer of the Petitioner contending that, the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no ground made out for interference in the present Writ Petition. The Petitioner is attempting to expand the contours of limited supervisory jurisdiction of this Court by seeking to reopen and re-appreciate the evidence. Respondent No. 5 has been declared as successful highest bidder, since she complied with all the terms of Sale Rushikesh ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 ::: 12/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt Proclamation, unlike the Petitioner who was disqualified for non-compliance. Respondent No. 5 has meticulously followed all the procedural requirements as mandated in Sale Proclamation.
11. It is submitted that, after being declared as a successful bidder, Respondent No.5 has promptly deposited the entire amount of Rs.1,29,00,000/- to demonstrate their bona fides. This timely payment confirms that Respondent No. 5 has financial capability and intend to complete the purchase transaction. In fact, the Petitioner was disqualified due to rejection of her bid by order dated 25.10.2022 itself. The Petitioner has not raised any challenge to the said order, instead, she has raised challenge to the subsequent order dated 27.10.2022, declaring Respondent No. 5. as qualified bidder. A bare perusal of the bid form would reveal that Petitioner has also submitted a bid of Rs. 1,29,00,000/-, i.e. the reserve price. Only when she was declared ineligible as an after thought, to gain an edge over the successful bidder, she had made an offer of depositing of Rs.1,40,00,000/-, therefore, she cannot claim to be the highest bidder.
Inspite of the fact that, the Petitioner was allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by her, vide order dated Rushikesh ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 ::: 13/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt 29.04.2025, she has not withdrawn it, therefore, now she cannot claim that she has been prejudiced due to the amount deposited by her.
The learned counsel relies on the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Navalkha & Sons Vs Sri Ramanya Das1 to buttress her submission that, once the Court concludes that, the price offered is adequate, subsequent higher offers should not normally constitute a ground for refusing confirmation of sale already accepted. According to her, since her price offered has been accepted, it needs to be confirmed by executing the Sale Deed, and subsequent higher offers in such cases is not permissible.
Similarly, she also relies on Vedica Procon (P) Ltd. Vs. Balleshwar Green (P) Ltd.2 to submit that, subsequent higher offer is not valid ground for refusing confirmation of a sale or for offer already made. Thus, according to her, no case is made out by the Petitioner, for causing interference with the two consecutive orders, which has refused to interfere in the order passed by the Recovery Officer.
12. We have heard the respective counsel.
After hearing the parties, the grievance of the Petitioner 1 (1969) 3 SCC 537 2 (2015) 10 SCC 94 Rushikesh ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 ::: 14/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt appears to be arising out of disqualification of her bid and declaration of Respondent No. 5 as a successful bidder. Upon perusal of the order sheet of the DRT- II, Mumbai, dated 25.10.2022, the Recovery Officer has recorded that, four bids have been received by the Registry of DRT-II, Mumbai, along with the hard copies. Out of the four bids, two bids submitted by Raj Manohar Wadhawa and Sejal Jayantilal Gala were not uploaded on the website of E-Auction, hence, were rejected. The bid submitted by the Petitioner was not found to be in compliance with Term No. 4 of the sale notice. Term No. 4 of the E-Auction notice reads thus:
"4. The public at large is hereby invited to bid in the said E-Auction. The offers in a sealed envelope along with demand draft/pay order of any Nationalized Bank/Scheduled Bank along with EMD Amount Rs. 13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs only) should be deposited with the undersigned not later than by 4.30 p.m. on 21.10.2022. The demand draft/pay order should be drawn in favour of the "Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Mumbai in R.P. No. 34 of 2013, The amount of demand draft/pay order shall be refunded to the unsuccessful bidders after due verification/ submission of KYC documents."
The following were the objections for not accepting the bid of the Petitioner:
(i) The bid form was not submitted in the sealed envelope;
Rushikesh ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 ::: 15/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt
(ii) The date of Demand Draft did not match with the information filled up in the bid form;
(iii) The Branch Name column is not filled up in the bid form;
In view of the aforesaid objections, the bid submitted by the Petitioner was disqualified.
The order further records that, the Registry is directed to refund the EMD amount deposited by way of DD/RTGS to Raj Manohar Wadhawa, Sejal Jayantilal Gala and Aarti S. Gunjikar, i.e. the Petitioner, by following the procedure in accordance with law. Since Respondent No. 5 Shailvi Shailesh Shah has submitted her bid in compliance of Term Nos. 4 and 5 of the sale notice, she is allowed to participate in the E-Auction accordingly, she is allowed to participate in the E-Auction.
13. When the matter was listed on 27.10.2020, the Respondent No. 5 was declared as successful highest bidder for an amount of Rs.1,29,00,000/-. Since the bid of the Petitioner was disallowed on 25.10.2022, she filed the Appeal before the DRT-II, Mumbai, challenging the declaration of Respondent No. 5 as a successful highest bidder, without challenging the order of her own disqualification dated 25.10.2022.
During the pendency of the Appeal before the DRT-II Rushikesh ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 ::: 16/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt Mumbai, it is recorded in order dated 28.11.2022, that the Petitioner has voluntarily shown willingness to deposit a sum of Rs.1,27,00,000/- before 30.11.2022, to show her bona fides. Her request was allowed and she deposited the higher amount. This order does not in any way confer any right on the Petitioner, since the Presiding Officer has not issued any directions to the Petitioner to deposit the said amount. She, on her own volition, has offered to deposit the said amount, therefore, the Petitioner cannot claim any preferential right on the basis of the amount deposited by her with the Registry of the DRT-II, Mumbai.
The Appeal No. 16 of 2022, filed before the DRT-II, Mumbai has been dismissed vide order dated 29.04.2025, by Presiding Officer, after giving due consideration to the grounds raised by the Petitioner, holding that, no objection was raised by the Petitioner to her own disqualification as she did not comply with Term No. 4 of the sale notice dated 06.09.2022. A note is also taken of the fact that, in the same recovery proceeding, auction of the said property held on 01.07.2019 had failed, as no bids were received for the reserve price of Rs.1,51,80,000/-.
In the result, the Presiding Officer, has arrived at a Rushikesh ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 ::: 17/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt conclusion that, no interference is called for in the order passed by the Recovery Officer dated 27.10.2022.
14. In the Regular Appeal No. 75 of 2025, the Petitioner has raised challenge to the order of DRT-II Mumbai, in Recovery Proceeding No. 34 of 2013. The learned Chairperson of the DRAT, Chennai (I/c DRAT, Mumbai) has been pleased to call for the original record from the Registry of the DRT-II, Mumbai, for better appreciation of rival claims.
Upon going through the bid documents, the learned Chairperson has observed that, the date of Demand Draft filled by the Petitioner was 19.10.2022, whereas the email addressed to the portal provider 'Auction Tiger' shows that, Demand Draft was dated 18.10.2022, thus there was discrepancy in the date of Demand Draft. The column in Annexure- 2, showing details of the branch name, issuing the Demand Draft, was left blank and the Demand Draft and bid form were not submitted in a sealed envelope. Thus, the learned Chairperson found that the objections raised by the Recovery Officer were found to be proper and valid.
Alongwith the bid documents of the Petitioner, the bid documents submitted by the successful bidder were also perused by the Chairperson, he observed that, all the Rushikesh ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 ::: 18/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt necessary details were filled without any mistake in Annexure- 2, and the envelope has been stapled at the top. It is therefore recorded that, the Petitioner has been rightly disqualified by the Recovery Officer, therefore the challenge to the declaration of successful bidder fails in Appeal No. 16 of 2022.
It is further held that, though the order dated 27.10.2022, declaring the bid issued in favor of Respondent No. 5 is challenged, the disqualification of the Petitioner dated 25.10.2022 has not been challenged, and this is the fatal defect in the case of the Petitioner. The Recovery Officer as well as the DRT-II, Mumbai have justly given the decision against the Petitioner.
15. We have perused the orders passed by both the Authorities. It is rightly held that, though the bid of the Petitioner was disqualified on 25.10.2022, she has not challenged her own disqualification before the DRT-II, Mumbai, in Appeal No. 16 of 2022. She has merely challenged the declaration of Respondent No. 5 as a successful bidder, without raising challenge to the foundational order of her disqualification dated 25.10.2022. It is for the first time before this Court, a prayer challenging the order of disqualification Rushikesh ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 ::: 19/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt dated 25.10.2022 is made by the Petitioner. The Petitioner now cannot raise a challenge to her disqualification for the first time, which she has failed to raise in the two proceedings filed by her, that are subject matter of this Writ Petition.
The challenge to the disqualification of the Petitioner is based on the ground that, the order of disqualification is made on factually incorrect technical grounds, which are trivial in nature. Since we have already observed supra that, the learned Chairperson of the DRAT has already scrutinized the original record, and recorded his finding of fact, holding that the documents submitted by the Petitioner were defective. In fact, the Chairperson had an advantage to peruse the original bid documents of the Petitioner as well as the successful bidder, i.e. Respondent No. 5. Hence, we do not propose to interfere with the findings of the fact recorded by the Chairperson of the DRAT.
16. It is the contention of the Petitioner that, she has deposited an amount of Rs.1,40,00,000/-, which is Rs.11,00,000/- more than the amount of reserve price of Rs.1,29,00,000/- offered and deposited by the successful bidder. Her bid of Rs.1,40,00,000/- has been accepted according to Sections 20 and 30(1) and (2) of the RDB Act, Rushikesh ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 ::: 20/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt 1993, therefore, she is entitled to be declared as a qualified bidder. Upon perusal of the Rojnama/order sheet dated 28.11.2022, we find that the Petitioner herself has volunteered to deposit a sum of Rs.1,27,00,000/- (in addition to the EMD Rs.13,00,000/- already deposited as per the conditions mentioned in the sale proclamation), no order directing her to deposit the said amount has been passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Mumbai.
So far as Section 30(1) is concerned, it enables the person aggrieved by the order of Recovery Officer made under the RDB Act, 1993 to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal within a period of 30 days. Mere filing of appeal does not confer any right on a person who is aggrieved by the order of the Recovery Officer. Thus, we do not find any substance in the contention of the Petitioner that once having accepted the higher bid amount of Rs.1,40,00,000/-, any rights are created in her favour as per provisions of RDB Act, 1993. In fact, an order is passed by the Recovery Officer, as well as the Presiding Officer, allowing the Petitioner to withdraw the amount deposited by her, which is not withdrawn. Therefore, she cannot claim any preferential right on the basis of deposit of the said amount. Even otherwise, her offer to deposit the Rushikesh ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 ::: 21/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt said amount is a post facto offer, after being disqualified and the auction is concluded, which is not a valid offer.
The Petitioner claims that, she has deposited the entire sale consideration within the statutory period, which entitled her for sale confirmation under the RDB Act, 1993, as well as the SARFAESI Act, 2002. This contention is unacceptable, since the Petitioner is a disqualified bidder, therefore, the deposit of higher bid amount after conclusion of auction would not result in qualifying her bid. Thus, the deposit of higher amount by the Petitioner does not create any right in her favour.
If any such claim of the Petitioner is accepted, allowing such practice to offer a higher price, after the bid is concluded, would undermine the finality of the judicial auctions and would lead to endless litigation. Thus, we do not find any merit in the aforementioned ground raised by the Petitioner.
17. The next objection raised by the Petitioner is about accepting the single bid of the bidder at a reserve price, which according to her, defeat the objective of maximizing the value in auction. So far as this ground is concerned, the fact remains that, initially there were four bids received in response to the publication of Sale Proclamation, from which the three bidders Rushikesh ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 ::: 22/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt were disqualified upon the scrutiny of their bids. There was a response by more than one bidder, to the Sale Proclamation, unfortunately three of them were disqualified, as a result, Respondent No. 5 remained to be the only qualified bidder.
18. Apart from that, the Sale Proclamation does not contain any bar to grant sale in favour of a single qualified bidder. The bid made by Respondent No. 5 is technically sound and offering the reserve price fixed in the Sale Proclamation. As such, there is no reason why the bid should be cancelled. There were more than one bids received by the Recovery Officer, only owing to the disqualification of other bidders a single bid remained in the fray. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of this Court in Kanchan India Limited & Anr. Vs. Government of Maharashtra & Ors. 3, where this Court held that, even if single bid is qualified, it is acceptable since the necessary conditions provided for participation of minimum three bids, and it did not require three qualified bids. Since the Authorities conducting the Auction would not be able to contemplate that, the other bidders would disqualify on technical grounds.
In the present case also, there is no stipulation in the Sale Proclamation about minimum number of bids, for 3 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 791 Rushikesh ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 ::: 23/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt declaring the sale valid. Thus, this ground raised by the Petitioner does not hold good.
19. The contention of the Petitioner that, the ground for disqualification of her bid is on non-essential conditions, also does not deserve any consideration, since it is always the prerogative of the Authorities conducting auction to provide conditions, which according to them, are necessary. One such condition is that, the bids should be tendered in a sealed envelope, which the Petitioner has failed to follow. This condition is an essential condition in order to maintain bid matching and transparency in the auction process. Hence, it can by no stretch of imagination be termed as non-essential condition.
By raising challenge to the orders passed by both the Authorities, the Petitioner is calling upon this Court to intervene in a confirmed sale auction. Such interference is permissible only in case of fraud or collusion, material irregularity or arbitrariness violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. After hearing the parties and perusal of record we do not find any of such ground is made out by the Petitioner. Similarly, we could not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in both the orders.
Rushikesh
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 :::
24/24 1 WP(L).3355.2026.odt
Hence, we do not find any case for causing interference in the concurrent finding recorded by both the Authorities, as a result, the challenge in the Writ Petition fails and the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.) After pronouncement of the judgment, the Petitioner, who is present in person, makes a request that DRT-II be directed to refund the court fee of Rs. 29,750/- deposited by her. After going through Rule 7 of Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, as well as Sections 13, 14, 15, and 16 of the Court Fees Act read with Section 89 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, we do not find any enabling provision, entitling the Petitioner to a refund of court fees. Hence, the prayer of the Petitioner stands rejected.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.) Rushikesh ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:25:08 :::