1. The 3rd Respondent/1st Defendant (D1) in the OA along with the Appellant herein, filed two Applications in IA No. 443 & 444/2006 in OA No. 1523/1997 and OA No. 84/2001, before the DRT, Bangalore, praying the Tribunal to stay the auction sale held on 20.4.2006, and also to grant time till 18.5.2006, to deposit the balance sale consideration (Rs.2.15 Crores) and also to accept Rs.3.40 Crores as full and final settlement against the dues of the Respondent Banks 1 & 2, and both the Applications came to be dismissed by Order dated 30.5.2006. Aggrieved by the same, this Appeal has been filed.
2. The 1st Respondent Bank filed OA-1523/1997, and the 2nd Respondent Bank filed OA-84/2001. By forming a consortium between themselves, a common Recovery Certificate dated 2.2.2006 in DCP No. 1799, was issued by the DRT, Bangalore. Pursuant to the same, the property was brought to sale and it was also sold on 20.4.2006. It appears, the 3rd respondent who is the borrower, moved the 1st & 2nd Respondent Banks for One Time Settlement (OTS) and one Subramania Raju, came forward to deposit the OTS amount. The 3rd respondent herein and the 3rd party Subramania Raju, moved the High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.3838/2006 for stay of proceedings and the High Court passed a conditional Order dated 14.3.2006, directing them to pay a sum of Rs.2 Crores directly to the Respondent Banks, within a period of three weeks from the date of the Order and they failed to comply with the said Order. Hence the Respondents 1 & 2 proceeded with the matter and brought the property for sale and sale was held on 20.4.2006, and the 4th Respondent viz. Vihar Developers Pvt. Ltd., had purchased the property in the auction and paid the entire sale consideration. The 3rd Respondent and the Appellant herein, taken out joint Applications before the DRT to stay the sale and DRT also granted time to deposit the amount and as there were no merits in the Applications, both the Applications came to be dismissed by the DRT. Hence this Appeal.
3. The point that arises for the consideration of this Tribunal is whether the Appellant who is a stranger/3rd party, to the OA proceedings and also to the recovery proceedings, has got any locus standi to maintain the Appeal.
4. The Appellant who is a stranger to the OA proceedings as well as to the auction proceedings, alone, has preferred this Appeal. Even at the time of filing the Applications before the DRT, the Appellant has not filed any Applications to implead himself as a party, but has manoeuvred to file the Applications, jointly along with the 3rd Respondent and that itself was not maintainable. Strangely enough, this Appeal has been filed only by the stranger/3rd party the Appellant herein.
5. Admittedly, the Appellant is neither a borrower nor a guarantor. He is not even a person who had taken part in the recovery proceedings, more particularly, in the auction held on 20.4.2006. As such, it is not known what is his 'locus standi' in the matter i.e. the locus standi, which signifies a right to be heard. The Appellant has not made out any sufficiency of interest to sustain his claim to be heard. In fact, he should not have been allowed to file the Application along with the 3rd Respondent before the DRT. But the Appellant was able to manage himself to join along with the 3rd Respondent and manoeuvred in filing the Application, that too without any Application to implead himself and that itself is impermissible under law. The Appellant has not made out even an iota of locus standi to prosecute the Application before the DRT or to file the Appeal before this Tribunal. Even before this Tribunal, the Appellant is trying to contend that the Respondent Banks in the objections to the Application filed by the 3rd Respondent, have consented for the postponement of the sale, subject to the defendants depositing a sum of Rs.306 lakhs immediately on or before 10.3.2006 and, therefore, the Appellant is an interested party and the locus standi of the Appellant is unimpeachable. The said statement was made by the Banks in the Application filed by the 3rd Respondent along with the Appellant, and that will not give rise to a status to the Appellant, that he is interested in the lis and his locus standi cannot be questioned. The stand of the Appellant cannot at all be accepted and appreciated. I am, therefore, of the view that the Appellant has no 'locus standi' to file the Application/Appeal.
6. Even in the Memorandum of Appeal filed before this Tribunal, the grievance of the Appellant is that the sale was postponed only for seven days without giving enough number of days, at least three weeks for the Appellant to deposit the amount, that the sale was done hurriedly, that the value of the property was not fixed properly, the reserve price also was not fixed properly, and they do not deserve any consideration for the simple reason that he does not fall within the definition of 'aggrieved person', who is entitled to prefer an Appeal.
But however, the Appellant relies upon certain rulings such as the case of Navalkha & Sons, Appellants v. Ramanuja Das and Ors., Respondents . That deals with a case where the proclamation of sale was not done properly and the sale price was not fixed properly.
The Appellant also relied upon the case of Union Bank of India, Appellant v. Official Liquidator, High Court of Calcutta and Ors.
, which deals with the fixation of reasonable price for the sale of the property and how the value of the property has got to be determined. Ramana Dayaram Shetty, Appellant v. The International Airport Authority of India and Ors., Respondents deals with a case, where a person came to Court without any locus standi to maintain a Writ Petition since no tender was submitted by him and he was a mere stranger. But the Appellant in that case, took a plea that if the Appellant did not enter the field of competition submitting the tender, what did it matter to him whose tender was accepted; what grievance could he have if the tender of the 4th respondent was wrongly accepted. A person whose tender was rejected might very well complain that the tender of someone else was wrongly accepted, but, it was submitted, how could a person who never tendered and who was at no time in the field, put forward such a complaint ?" That in the beginning of the Judgement itself, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed, "This appeal by special leave raised interesting questions of law in the area of public law. What are the constitutional obligations on the State when it takes action in exercise of its statutory or executive power Is the State entitled to deal with its property in any manner it likes or award a contract to any person it chooses without any constitutional limitations upon it ?" In the said context, it was observed even a stranger can challenge the action of the Court.
I am at a loss to know, how the principles laid down in that case are applicable to the case on hand.
7. The Appellant also relied upon few more decisions reported in AIR 1997 SC 3243, (2000) 3 SCC 528, JT 2002 (6) SC 16, (2001) 10 SC 619, (1995) 6 SCC 742. They are all the cases mainly arising under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, with regard to the permissibility of adducing additional evidence and they are of no relevance to the case on hand.
8. For the purposes of academic interest, let us also consider the meaning of 'aggrieved person'. The plain meaning of 'aggrieved person' is "a person who has suffered illegal grievance, and a man against whom a decision has been pronounced, which has wrongly deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something." This is the view taken in Lalji Sahey Singh v.Abdul Gani 7 India Cases 765 (766). The word aggrieved person does not also mean a person who is disappointed of a benefit like the Appellant herein, which he might have received, if some other order had been made (Thakur Das v. Custodian E.P. AIR 1950 E. Punjab 175). It can also be said that an aggrieved person is a person one who has a subsisting personal right in the claim made and in the protection of which claim he has personal interest. But that does not mean a person, who is disappointed of a benefit, which he might have received, if some other order has been made. Admittedly, the Appellant is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, carrying on mainly the business of development of property and constructions etc. As already pointed out that the Appellant is neither a borrower nor a guarantor to the loan transaction nor he had taken part in the auction held and, therefore, he is not at all an aggrieved person. But however, he is trying to seek a fortune by filing frivolous Applications and also to make a capital out of it, as he being a developer and a builder.
As such, the grievance voiced by the Appellant is unrelated to them and they are not having any subsisting interest at all in the matter. In fact, I may go a step further and state that if at all the aggrieved person is the 3rd respondent and though he has filed the Application before the Tribunal, has not chosen to join along with the Appellant to file the Appeal and that would go to show, that the Appellant alone has been pursuing the matter to meet his personal ends, even though he is not having any subsisting personal right or claim in the matter. As such, the Appellant is not at all an aggrieved person and the Appeal filed is not at all maintainable.
9. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the Appellant is not at all an aggrieved person nor they have got any locus standi to file the Application or the Appeal before this Tribunal, and the Appeal filed by them deserves to be dismissed.