Supervisory jurisdiction: limited remand of valuation to DRT upheld while confirmed auction sale remains intact.

The primary issue was whether remanding the limited question of valuation and reserve-price fixation to the DRT after completion and confirmation of an auction unlawfully disturbed the rights of a bona fide purchaser. The Court applied the principle protecting bona fide auction purchasers and finality of court-confirmed sales, while recognising the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction to order reassessment where credible issues of inadequate valuation or unlawful reserve fixation arise. The remand was confined to fresh valuation consideration by the Tribunal without setting aside the auction or sale certificate. Outcome: High Court's remand upheld and appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court erred in remitting the limited question of valuation and fixation of reserve price of Schedule A to E properties to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) after the auction sale had been conducted, confirmed and a sale certificate registered; and whether such remand unlawfully disturbed the rights of the bona fide auction purchaser.

Analysis: The Court examined the factual matrix showing that the DRT conducted the auction after obtaining a valuation report dated 08.09.2010, that sixteen bidders participated, that the appellant was declared the highest bidder, deposited the sale consideration and obtained a registered sale certificate in 2011, and that the DRT and DRAT had earlier upheld the auction's legality. The Court recognised the settled principle protecting bona fide auction purchasers and the need for finality in court-confirmed sales, citing authorities that confirmed auction sales should not be lightly disturbed except in cases of fraud or material irregularity. The Court balanced that principle against the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court to examine the adequacy of valuation and the lawfulness of reserve price fixation where credible issues are raised, noting that the objective of recovery proceedings is to realise the maximum value of secured assets. The Court observed that the High Court's direction was narrowly confined to remanding the valuation issue to the DRT for fresh consideration on relevant materials and did not set aside the auction, disturb the sale confirmation, or negate the rights of the auction purchaser. The remand was held to be a limited exercise to permit the Tribunal to reassess whether valuation and reserve price fixation accorded with law so as to protect the interests of all parties.

Conclusion: The High Court did not err in remitting the limited issue of valuation and fixation of the reserve price to the DRT for fresh consideration; the remand is a lawful, confined exercise of supervisory jurisdiction and does not unjustifiably disturb the confirmed auction. The Civil Appeal is dismissed (decision in favour of the respondents).

---