JUDGMENT : R.K. GUPTA (Chairperson) 1. They are heard. The present appeal is preferred under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 challenging the order passed by the DRT, Lucknow on 24th August, 2012 in S.A. No. 90/2011. By this order the Tribunal has allowed the application preferred by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and directed for redemption of the property by the borrowers. The relevant facts for adjudication of the present case are that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 took the financial assistance by way of Cash Credit Limit, Term Loan and Housing Loan. Since there was default in repayment of the loan by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, the appellant-Bank issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The said notice was issued on 20th April, 2007. In the said notice, it was the claim of the Bank that the amount due is for a sum of Rs.7,13,060.19 along with the interest. The same is also clear from the Schedule-A, which was annexed to the notice under Section 13(2), filed before this Tribunal and is place at Page No. 26 of the paper book of the appellant. The amount as such was not paid by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, the Bank proceeded to take action provided under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Property as such was put to auction by publishing the notice, which is placed on record at page No. 42 of the paper book. In the said auction notice also, the amount of Rs.7,13,060.19 was shown to be the dues recoverable by the Bank from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the reserve price of the property was fixed for a sum of Rs.10.71 lacs. 2. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 earlier filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which was registered as Writ-C No. 6280/2011. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court by passing an order on 15th February, 2011 on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. 3. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 thereafter preferred the securitisation application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the Tribunal and the said application was filed on 22nd February, 2011. 4. Thereafter, the respondent Nos. 3. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 thereafter preferred the securitisation application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the Tribunal and the said application was filed on 22nd February, 2011. 4. Thereafter, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed another writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which was registered as Writ C. No. 65189/2011. The said writ petition was also dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court by passing an order on 3rd January, 2012. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on the ground that the petitioners had already availed the alternative remedy by filing the securitisation application before the Tribunal, therefore, the Hon’ble High Court has refused to entertain the said writ petition. The securitisation application which was preferred by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 22nd February, 2011 was already pending and in the said application the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application for amendment which was allowed. 5. Before filing of the application for amendment, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted an application for redemption of the property before the Tribunal and the said application was submitted on 6th January, 2012. It was the claim of the respondents that on 5th January, 2012 they had already deposited the Bank draft for a sum of Rs.10,00,510/- with the appellant-Bank and the appellant-Bank refused to accept the same. 6. The Tribunal while adjudicating the case finally accepted the application for redemption of the property so preferred by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by passing the impugned order. Against the order passed by the Tribunal, the auction purchaser also preferred an appeal to this Tribunal which was registered as Appeal Sr. No. 9/13. The said Appeal was dismissed by this Tribunal by passing an order on 28th January, 2013 on the ground that this Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in an appeal preferred before this Tribunal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and as a consequence of the same, the appellant-Bank preferred the present appeal against the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on 24th August, 2012, by which the redemption was permitted. 7. This is to be seen that along with the Appeal, the appellant-Bank has filed the details of appropriation of auction money of Rs.14.50 lacs. 7. This is to be seen that along with the Appeal, the appellant-Bank has filed the details of appropriation of auction money of Rs.14.50 lacs. The property was put to auction on 4th January, 2012 according to the sale proclamation and there is no dispute that within the stipulated period the auction purchaser deposited the full amount as provided under Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The full amount as such was deposited by the auction purchaser by 12th January, 2012 and thus, the auction purchasers complied with the conditions. 8. This is also to be seen that the Bank intimated the auction purchaser vide their letter dated 4th January, 2012 that the highest bid received from the auction purchaser towards the property in question has been accepted and the auction purchaser was further directed to deposit 75% of the bid amount within 15 days from 4th January, 2012. There is no dispute in the present case that the auction purchaser deposited the full amount on 12th January, 2012 in terms to the confirmation of the acceptance of the tender of the auction purchaser as directed by the Bank vide its letter dated 4th January, 2012 and the possession of the property was also taken. 9. Before the Tribunal the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 relied upon a judgment passed by this Tribunal on 10th January, 2012 in Appeal Sr. No. 305/11 Ladli Prasad Srivastava v. Punjab National Bank, wherein this Tribunal held that the borrower can exercise its power/option for redemption of the property even after actual transfer of the property. This Tribunal considered two words as enumerated under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, wherein the word “sale” or “transfer” are used and this sub-section also provides that if the borrower tenders the full amount of debt together with all charges, costs and expenses, then there should be redemption of the property in favour of the borrower and the borrower can exercise such rights. 10. So far as the Bank was concerned, the Bank before the Tribunal relied upon a judgment passed by the M.P. High Court, Gwalior Bench in 804270. 10. So far as the Bank was concerned, the Bank before the Tribunal relied upon a judgment passed by the M.P. High Court, Gwalior Bench in 804270. This case was relied upon by the Bank for the proposition that once the property has been put to auction and the sale is confirmed, then there could not be redemption of the property under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by the Bank on compromise with the borrower, but the Tribunal placing reliance on a judgment passed by this Tribunal in Ladli Prasad Srivastava v. Punjab National Bank (supra) permitted the redemption of the property. 11. On the basis of the facts so enumerated as aforesaid, the question arises, whether the judgment passed by the Single Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench in Gaurav Enterprises (supra) will have any application to the facts and circumstances of the present case? In the said case, the facts on which the said judgment has been delivered by the High Court were that after the property was put to auction by the Bank the Bank entered into a compromise with the borrower and accepted the amount, with the result after accepting the amount, the auction was cancelled by the Bank. 12. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, the question before the Hon’ble Single Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, Gwalior was that whether the Bank has any power to settle the case by way of compromise under the garb of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002? Ultimately on considering the various issues and after analyzing the provisions as contained under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 the Hon’ble Single Judge held that the Bank under Section 13(8) of the Act is not permitted to accept the amount from the borrower after the sale is confirmed and on that basis the question before the Hon’ble Single Judge was that whether, after auctioning the Property, the Bank has power to settle the case by way of compromise with the borrower and whether the Bank can cancel the sale or auction which was confirmed after accepting the amount under the compromise? 13. 13. This is to be seen that against the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, a writ appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble Division Bench of the said High Court and the Hon’ble Division Bench upheld the reasoning of the Hon’ble Single Judge in 524914. The Hon’ble Division Bench was of the opinion that in the present case the basic argument which was submitted by the Bank was that the amount under the compromise though was accepted but ultimately it was found by the Division Bench that the borrower who entered into the compromise with the Bank to settle the amount, did not pay full amount as such, therefore, the Hon’ble Division Bench held that since the borrower has not deposited the full amount of the compromise within the stipulated period, therefore, the right to settle by the Bank is not available and on that basis the Hon’ble Division Bench upheld the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, but the Hon’ble Division Bench did not consider the reasoning given by the Hon’ble Single Judge that the Bank has no power to arrive at the settlement or compromise with the borrower after when the auction was conducted. The Hon’ble Division Bench only confined to the issue that since full amount under the settlement was not paid by the borrower, therefore, the reason for setting aside the auction by the Bank was not found to be correct, factually, it is clear from the judgment’s Para No. 15 and the aforesaid two judgments were delivered on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. This is to be seen that in the present case there was no settlement at any point of time. The appellant-Bank has not entered into the settlement with the borrower. Under the circumstances, the Bank was justified in refusing to accept the amount because after when the auction was conducted and bid was accepted and the acceptance of bid through tender was communicated to the auction purchaser by the Bank by its letter dated 4th January, 2012, then the Bank certainly will have no power to accept the amount under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 because the stage was over, even though the borrower has tendered the amount before the “sale” or “transfer”. 15. 15. If Sector 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 does not permit the Bank to settle the case after the property is auctioned, then the question arises, whether the DRT has the powers and whether the DRT for ends of justice can direct for redemption of the property. 16. In this reference, Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is relevant. The Section 17 of the Act provides a right in favour of the borrower or any person aggrieved by the measures taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the Act to prefer an application to the Tribunal. Sub-section (7) of Section 17 of the Act further provides that save as otherwise provided under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall as far as may dispose of application in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the rules made there-under. Thus, for exercising the powers to dispose of the securitisation application preferred by any person under Section 17 of the Act, the same is to be disposed of by exercising the powers conferred on the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the RDDBFI Act, 1993 and the rules made there-under. Section 19 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993 provides for filing an application to the Tribunal by the Bank or Financial Institutions to recover its dues. Sub-section (25) of Section 19 of the Act as aforesaid further provides that the Tribunal may make such orders and give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its orders or to prevent abuse of the process or to secure the ends of justice. Thus, by virtue of Section 19(25) of the RDDBFI Act, 1993, wide power is given to the Tribunal to pass such an order which is necessary to secure the ends of justice. 17. Now the fact of the present case would be relevant to decide, whether the Tribunal was justified in passing the order of redemption? The property was put to auction on 4th January, 2012. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 tendered a sum of Rs. 10,00,510/- through the demand draft on 5th January, 2012 to appellant-Bank. The appellant-Bank in fact did not accept the same. Subsequently, the respondent Nos. The property was put to auction on 4th January, 2012. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 tendered a sum of Rs. 10,00,510/- through the demand draft on 5th January, 2012 to appellant-Bank. The appellant-Bank in fact did not accept the same. Subsequently, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted an application to the Tribunal praying for acceptance of the said amount and also to accept the redemption along with the original Bank draft. 18. It is undoubtedly true that so far as the auction purchaser is concerned, he has also deposited the full amount of sale within the stipulated period as provided by the Bank vide its letter dated 4th January, 2012, which is also provided under the Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. According to the Bank, Rs.10,00,510/- were not sufficient, which could be said to be a real intention of the borrower for redemption of the property. 19. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that for the purpose of redemption, the full amount as such has to be deposited. The full amount which was due including interest, cost and the other charges are also to be deposited by the borrower for redemption of the property and the deposit of Rs.10,00,510/- was not sufficient amount for redemption. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the statement as submitted along with the Appeal at page 95 of the paper book. 20. This is to be seen that the appellant-Bank in the same has shown that the total amount i.e., Rs.15,23,350/- was recoverable and deposit of an amount of Rs.10,00,510/- was not the sufficient amount. To substantiate the same, the appellant-Bank has also filed the statements of three accounts, which are commencing from page No. 96 to 101 of the paper book. The amount of Rs.4,78,515.35 pertains to the account No. 300076460723, which is in the name of one Shabnam Jahan. So far as the other two accounts are concerned, the said accounts are in the name of the borrowers-respondent Nos. 1 and 2. On the basis of the same, the learned Counsel for the appellant-Bank also failed to satisfy to this Tribunal as to how against the accounts of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e., borrowers, a sum of Rs.4,78,515.35 was added as due. This amount was also not shown to be due when the appellant-Bank had issued the notice to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e., borrowers, a sum of Rs.4,78,515.35 was added as due. This amount was also not shown to be due when the appellant-Bank had issued the notice to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and it was only shown that a sum of Rs.7,13,060.19 with interest were due. The possession notice also shows that the said amount is due. The possession notice which was published by the Bank also shows that the said amount was due. Subsequently, the sale proclamation was published by the Bank, then the amount of Rs.7,13,060.19 with interest was shown to be due which is clear from the Annexure A-1 of the paper book and in all the notices published by the Bank only the said amount was disclosed as due amount and not any other amount. It is difficult to conceive as to how and for what reason, the appellant-Bank has included the amount of Rs.4,78,515.35 as due which was the account held by one Shabnam Jahan. Before the Tribunal, the same was never explained and before this Tribunal also the said aspect has not been explained. Under the circumstances, the amount which was shown to be due from the borrower-Shabnam Jahan cannot be said to be a due against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the amount against the said respondents would only be the amount as shown in the notice issued by the Bank under Section 13(2) of the Act and the notice published by the Bank for taking symbolic possession of the property and also the notice published by the Bank for taking over the actual possession of the property and also the sale proclamation published by the Bank, which was also for the same amount. 21. Considering the aforesaid facts, if the amount as such is taken to be paid by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, then only the deficit amount comes to Rs.44,835/-. Unfortunately, in the present case, it was the stand of the appellant-Bank that no amount as such, as stated by the appellant-Bank that no amount as such, as stated by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, then only the deficit amount comes to Rs.44,835/-. Unfortunately, in the present case, it was the stand of the appellant-Bank that no amount as such, as stated by the appellant-Bank that no amount as such, as stated by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of Rs.10,00,510/-, was deposited, though it was in the record of the Tribunal that the amount of Rs.10,00,510/- through demand draft was tendered to the Bank, but was not accepted by the Bank on 5th January, 2012 and on the contrary, the stand was taken by the Bank that no amount as such was ever tendered for redemption of the property by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The Bank at any point of time has not stated in their reply to the application for redemption that as to what amount is further to be deposited towards the others charges, and the amount tendered was not the sufficient amount. 22. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there was only shortfall of Rs.44,835/- on the date when the amount of Rs.10,00,510/- was tendered by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal and was also when tendered to the Bank on 5th January, 2012. Before the Tribunal the appellant-Bank should have intimated, as to what further amount was required to be deposited by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 so that redemption could be permitted, but the Bank has not chosen to give further amount to be charged or paid by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 23. Keeping in view the actual scenario of present case, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be saddled and cannot be deprived of their property, particularly, when they have shown their bona fides by tendering the amount of Rs.10,00,510/- with the appellant-Bank and also before the Tribunal. There was only shortfall of Rs.44,835/- and for this small amount, they cannot be saddled and cannot be deprived of their right to redeem the property, particularly, in the light of the fact that before the Tribunal the amount so tendered by the respondent Nos. There was only shortfall of Rs.44,835/- and for this small amount, they cannot be saddled and cannot be deprived of their right to redeem the property, particularly, in the light of the fact that before the Tribunal the amount so tendered by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of Rs.10,00,510/- was accepted by the officer of the Bank with a noting that he has accepted the said demand draft and the said demand draft was accepted by the officer of the Bank on 24th August, 2012 and the impugned order of redemption was passed on 24th August, 2012. After passing of the order by the Tribunal, the said amount has been accepted by the officer of the appellant-Bank without any protest. If once the amount was accepted without lodging any protest, then the Bank being a Financial Institution is not justified in objecting to the redemption. 24. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Bank submitted that after accepting the said demand draft the said demand draft had again been returned to the Tribunal, but return of the said Bank draft to the Tribunal will have no effect on the issue because the fact remains that the said demand draft was accepted by the officer of the appellant-Bank on 24th August, 2012 without lodging any protest. 25. Now the question arises that if the Tribunal was justified in directing for redemption of the property, then the question further arises that balance has to be maintained between all the parties to the lis. So far as the auction purchaser is concerned, of course, there was no fault on his part because he deposited the full amount i.e., Rs.14.50 lacs. The sale certificate was issued though the same is not registered. The Tribunal without considering this aspect has permitted the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to redeem the property. 26. Learned Counsel for the Bank further submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in directing for redemption of the property without protecting the interest of the auction purchaser. The auction purchaser was not at fault because he deposited the full amount as directed by the Bank and, therefore, he suffered loss, as the sale certificate was issued in his favour. 27. Under the circumstances, it is contended on behalf of the appellant-Bank that the Tribunal should have given some positive direction in favour of the auction purchaser to compensate him. The said aspect is considered. 27. Under the circumstances, it is contended on behalf of the appellant-Bank that the Tribunal should have given some positive direction in favour of the auction purchaser to compensate him. The said aspect is considered. 28. This is also to be seen that the Bank is concerned with its recovery and when a party or borrower is willing to pay all the dues, then there should not be any hurdle in receiving the dues by the Bank. 29. The Appeal of the auction purchaser has already been dismissed by this Tribunal and the same was held to be barred by limitation. The present Appeal could survive which was filed by the Bank and when the Bank is entitled to receive its full dues, then there should be no reason not to permit the borrower to redeem his property. 30. This is to be seen that the total amount of Rs.14.50 lacs was deposited by the auction purchasers till 12th January, 2012 and if the said amount would have been deposited with the Bank, then it must have earned the interest not less than 10% per annum and he must have spent, some amount on the litigation to protect his auction sale. Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay Rs.2.00 lacs towards the interest and the other charges suffered by the auction purchaser, within thirty days from today. 31. With regard to the deficiency of the amount of Rs.44,835/- which is found to be the deficit amount against the amount deposited by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the appellant-Bank, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1.00 lac within thirty days from today. The said amount includes the interest on the deficit amount of Rs.44,835/- and the other charges in relation to the present Appeal and towards the other heads. The said amount shall be paid through the demand draft to the appellant-Bank. The amount of Rs.14.50 lacs shall be returned by the Bank to the auction purchaser within a period of thirty days from today. This amount is in addition to the amount of Rs.2.00 lacs is awarded by this Tribunal to the auction purchaser which shall be paid by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as aforesaid. The amount of Rs.14.50 lacs shall be returned by the Bank to the auction purchaser within a period of thirty days from today. This amount is in addition to the amount of Rs.2.00 lacs is awarded by this Tribunal to the auction purchaser which shall be paid by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as aforesaid. Until the said amount i.e., Rs.1.00 lac is deposited by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with the respondent-Bank, the title deed shall not be returned to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by the Bank. 32. It is made clear that in case the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 fail to pay any of the amounts as aforesaid within the stipulated period, then the right of redemption shall stand closed automatically and all rights over the property purchased by the auction purchaser shall rest on the auction purchasers. 33. The Tribunal is further directed to return the amount of Rs.10,00,510/- to the appellant-Bank as deposited by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 34. Till the period of 30 days from today, the status quo shall be maintained by the parties by not creating any third party right over the property in question. 35. Learned Counsel for the auction purchaser has undertaken that after receipt of the full amount as directed by this Tribunal, the possession of the property in question shall be handed over to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In view of the aforesaid, the Appeal is partly allowed.