The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Invest Assets Securitisations & Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., challenging the auction sale of a secured asset. The petitioner's main contention was the alleged non-compliance with Regulation 37(1) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2015, by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). The court found that the assignee failed to raise timely objections during the proceedings, thus disentitling them from equitable relief. The court upheld the DRAT's decision, affirming that the sale was conducted in accordance with the law despite the alleged technical breach.

1. Introduction

Invest Assets Securitisations & Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution, challenging the auction sale of a secured asset. The petitioner argued that the sale violated Regulation 37(1) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2015, as the auction was conducted without obtaining a valuation report from an approved valuer, which they claimed was mandatory.

2. Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Ashish Kamat, argued that the DRAT failed to consider the impact of violating Regulation 37(1), which mandates obtaining a valuation report before fixing the reserve price for auction. The petitioner claimed that this non-compliance rendered the auction sale illegal and requested the court to set aside the DRAT's decision and the auction sale.

3. Counter-Arguments by the Respondents

Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, representing the auction purchaser, countered that the petitioner failed to raise these objections during the initial proceedings before the Recovery Officer. He argued that the petitioner’s objections were an afterthought and that the reserve price was reduced multiple times due to a lack of bids, indicating a fair market value. The Bank of Baroda also opposed the petition, highlighting that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings but chose not to object at the relevant time.

4. Court's Reasoning and Judgment

The court, after hearing both sides, concluded that the petitioner’s failure to raise timely objections disentitled them from any equitable relief. The court emphasized that the petitioner participated in the proceedings before the Recovery Officer without raising the issue of non-compliance with Regulation 37(1). The court upheld the DRAT’s decision, stating that the sale was conducted properly and dismissed the writ petition.

5. Conclusion

The judgment reinforces the importance of raising timely objections in legal proceedings, especially in auction sales of secured assets. The court’s ruling underscores that technical breaches in procedure may not be sufficient to overturn an auction sale if the aggrieved party fails to act promptly.