JUDGMENT : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. S.S. Panesar with learned advocate Mr. Maunish T. Pathak for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Pranav G. Desai for the respondent-Bank. 2. Respondent No. 2-original borrower is not served. Learned advocate Mr. Panesar for the petitioner seeks permission to delete the respondent No. 2-borrower as the dispute raised in this petition pertains to the non-acceptance of the forfeiture of the amount deposited by the petitioner in auction held by the respondent-Bank. 3. Permission is granted. Respondent No. 2 is ordered to be deleted. 4. Having regard to the controversy involved in this petition which is in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for hearing today. 5. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Desai waives service of notice of rule for the sole respondent. 6. The brief facts of the case are as under: 6.1. The respondent No. 2 had availed financial facilities from the respondent No. 1-Bank for securing the due repayment of the said facilities. The Respondent No. 2 had also mortgaged two immovable properties being (1) Residential Flat No. 2/DD/11, Shree Balaji Agora, Sardar Patel Ring Road, Sughad Gandhinagar and (2) Residential Flat No. 2/DD/12, Shree Balaji Agora, Sardar Patel Ring Road, Sughad Gandhinagar. 6.2. It is the case of the petitioner that upon the breach of the sanction terms by the respondent No. 2, in accordance with the RBI Guidelines, the said Accounts were classified as NPA by the respondent No. 1-Bank and measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SARFAESI Act”) in respect to the properties in question were initiated. 6.3. The Respondent No. 1 Bank, on 25th January, 2020 had issued Auction Sale Notice under the SARFAESI Act and invited bids for the auction to be conducted on 26th February, 2020. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted bid of Rs. 32.40 Lakhs and also deposited the required EMD amount of Rs. 3.24 Lakh and after extensive bidding, the petitioner was declared as highest bidder for the bid amount of Rs. 42 Lakh. In respect to the same, the respondent No. 1 also sent the letter declaring the petitioner as successful highest bidder as well as asking the petitioner to further deposit Rs. 3.24 Lakh and after extensive bidding, the petitioner was declared as highest bidder for the bid amount of Rs. 42 Lakh. In respect to the same, the respondent No. 1 also sent the letter declaring the petitioner as successful highest bidder as well as asking the petitioner to further deposit Rs. 7.26 Lakhs by 27th February, 2020. 6.4. It is the case of the petitioner that in compliance to the same, the petitioner deposited Rs. 7.26 Lakh immediately and was required to pay the balance amount of Rs. 31.50 Lakhs within 15 days, i.e. by 12th March, 2020. 6.5. The petitioner had applied for Home Loan from State Bank of India and since the required documents were not being supplied to the petitioner, delay occurred in respect to the sanctioning of the Home Loan. Apprehending the said scenario, by email dated 9th March, 2020, the petitioner sought further time for 15 days for the payment of Rs. 31.50 Lakhs. The petitioner was initially granted further time of 15 days and thereafter full extension of 90 days was granted. Therefore, the petitioner had time till 25th May, 2020 for making above payment. 6.6. It is the case of the petitioner that due to Covid-19 pandemic, Lockdown in the entire State of Gujarat from 21st March, 2020 was announced. It is submitted the Government of India announced nationwide lockdown on 25th March, 2020, which lasted till 31st May, 2020. It is the case of the petitioner that the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 had also passed directions to exclude the Lockdown period for calculating limitation period provided under different statutes. It is the case of the petitioner that the further extension granted by the respondent No. 1, which was otherwise going to expire on 25th May, 2020, would in the above peculiar circumstances now expired on 7th August, 2020 after excluding the period of lockdown from 21st March, 2020 to 31st May, 2020. 6.7. It is the case of the petitioner that though there was nationwide lockdown, the petitioner was making all efforts to get financial assistance by way of Home Loan from State Bank of India in order to make timely payment of the balance amount. The Petitioner was in constant touch with the respondent-Bank during lockdown period. 6.8. 6.7. It is the case of the petitioner that though there was nationwide lockdown, the petitioner was making all efforts to get financial assistance by way of Home Loan from State Bank of India in order to make timely payment of the balance amount. The Petitioner was in constant touch with the respondent-Bank during lockdown period. 6.8. The petitioner was asked to make the payment of the balance amount before 25th May, 2020 or else the earlier amount will entirely be forfeited as per whatsapp message received from the respondent. 6.9. State Bank of India vide Sanction letter dated 30th May, 2020 approved the credit facility of Rs. 34.24 Lakhs to the petitioner as against the liability of the petitioner for Rs. 31.50 Lakh. However, later on the said sanction was cancelled due to want of documents relating to the properties in question which were deliberately not provided by the respondent despite making various requests vide Emails dated 11.03.2020, 07.05.2020, 13.05.2020 and 30.05.2020. 6.10. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 1, upon obtaining sanction letter dated 30.05.2020 from the State Bank of India, immediately wrote a letter to the respondent and requested to guide him with regard to making the balance payment. It is the case of the petitioner that the said letter could not be delivered due to Covid-19 pandemic and therefore on 2nd June, 2020, the said letter was personally delivered to the respondent. Despite receiving the said letter, instead of granting the opportunity to the petitioner to make the payment, the petitioner received letter dated 6th June, 2020 intimating about forfeiture of the entire amount as the extended 90 days period had already expired. 6.11. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner immediately approached this Court by filing of Special Civil Application No. 7348 of 2020, however the same was withdrawn vide order dated 9th June, 2020 and this Court granted liberty to avail alternative remedy. 6.12. 6.11. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner immediately approached this Court by filing of Special Civil Application No. 7348 of 2020, however the same was withdrawn vide order dated 9th June, 2020 and this Court granted liberty to avail alternative remedy. 6.12. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the liberty granted vide order dated 9th June, 2020, the petitioner immediately approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Ahmedabad (for short ‘the DRT’) by filing Securitisation Application No. 116 of 2020 wherein the Presiding Officer vide order dated 20th July, 2020 asked the petitioner to deposit the balance amount within 10 days and also observed that the say of the Borrower/Mortgagor is required for the final adjudication of the Securitisation Application. 6.13. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to the order dated 20th July, 2020, the petitioner immediately on 23rd July, 2020 deposited the entire balance amount of Rs. 31.50 Lakh with the respondent-Bank. 6.14. According to the petitioner, the payment of balance amount of Rs. 31.50 Lakh would also be within the 90 days period if the Lockdown period is excluded. Illustrative chart given below showing calculations of time and payment of amounts with regard to auction dated 26th February, 2020 is provided by the petitioner: Date Particular Time lapsed Payment (in Lakhs) 26.02.2020 Bid was accepted. T 3.24 27.02.2020 25% of the total bid amount was to be deposited. T+1 7.26 09.03.2020 Applied for extension of 15 days. T+12 12.03.2020 Initial 15 days period was to expire. However, since the extension sought on 09.03.2020 was granted, 15 days would now expire on 27.03.2020. T+15 19.03.2020 Last day before Lockdown. T+22 20.03.2020 Janta Cerfew throughout the nation was declared. --- 21.03.2020 Lockdown in the entire State of Gujarat was declared. --- 25.03.2020 Nationwide Lockdown was declared. --- 27.03.2020 Further extension of 15 days was to expire. However, later on the Respondent No. 1 further granted full extension of 90 days, which was to expire on 25.05.2020 in normal scenario. --- 25.05.2020 As per Respondent No. 1, 90 days period had expired, wherein the Respondent No. 1 erred in excluding the Lockdown period from 20.03.2020 to 31.05.2020. --- 06.06.2020 Bank wrote a letter in reply to letter of Petitioner and intimated the Petitioner about forfeiture of the payment made. --- 25.05.2020 As per Respondent No. 1, 90 days period had expired, wherein the Respondent No. 1 erred in excluding the Lockdown period from 20.03.2020 to 31.05.2020. --- 06.06.2020 Bank wrote a letter in reply to letter of Petitioner and intimated the Petitioner about forfeiture of the payment made. --- 08.06.2020 Lockdown was partially lifted and certain movements were allowed with restrictions. T+23 09.06.2020 Petitioners had filed SCA 7348 of 2020, which was withdrawn with a liberty to avail alternative remedy. T+24 11.06.2020 In SA No. 116 of 2020, Ld. PO, DRT-1, Ahmedabad issued notice. T+26 20.07.2020 Ld. PO vide order directed the Petitioner to pay the balance amount to Respondent-1. T+65 23.07.2020 In compliance to the order dated 20.07.2020. T+68 31.50 16.08.2020 90 days period would expire if the lockdown period is excluded. T+90 Total 42 Lacs 6.15. The petitioner also moved an application for joining the borrower before the DRT. However, the borrower did not remain present despite service of summons through regular as well as alternate modes of services. Thereafter the Securitisation Application was finally heard on 14th September, 2020. The DRT however held that it cannot extend the time period for payment of amount as it does not have any power and accordingly, the Securitisation Application was dismissed without taking into account the prevailing pandemic Covid-19 situation and without excluding the period of lockdown. 7.1. Learned advocate Mr. Panesar submitted that as per the details given in the chart, the petitioner was required to deposit the amount of remaining 75% before 7th August, 2020 but the petitioner deposited the same much earlier on 23rd July, 2020. It was submitted that the petitioner could not deposit the amount of 75% in view of the lockdown prevailing at the relevant time in the year 2020 due to Covid-19 pandemic. 7.2. It was submitted that as the respondent-Bank has returned the amount deposited before the DRT by the petitioner, the petitioner is ready to deposit the remaining 75% amount with 6% interest per annum from the date of refund by the respondent-Bank till the same is deposited or in alternative, the respondent-Bank may be directed to refund the 25% of the forfeited amount with 6% interest per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment. 8.1. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. 8.1. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Desai for the respondent-Bank submitted that the respondent-Bank cannot extend the time in view of the mandatory provisions of the Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest Rules, 2022 (for short ‘the Rules’) and therefore, the request made by the petitioner is rightly rejected by the respondent-Bank as well as DRT. 8.2. Reliance was placed by the learned advocate Mr. Desai on the following decision of the Supreme Court: 1. Varimadugu Obi Reddy vs. B. Sreenivasulu and Others in Civil Appeal No. 8470 of 2022, dated 16.11.2022 2. GM, Sri Siddeshwara Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Others vs. Ikbal and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 83 3. Vasu P. Shetty vs. Hotel Vandana Palace and Others, (2014) 5 SCC 660 8.3. Learned advocate Mr. Desai also submitted that there is no document on record for extension of time of fifteen days and further extension of 90 days between the parties as it was done by mutual understanding during the lockdown period. It was submitted that as per the provisions of Rule 9(4) of the Rules, the petitioner is required to pay the remaining 75% of the amount of Rs. 31.50 Lakhs on or before 25th May, 2020 which, the petitioner deposited on 23rd July, 2020. 8.4. It was further submitted that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal in Securitisation Application No. 116 of 2020 before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. 8.5. It was also pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted time of 90 days for extension of limitation by the order passed in the month of March, 2022 but the petitioner did not bother to make any application before the respondent-Bank for deposit of the amount as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8.6. It was submitted that the respondent-Bank therefore is unable to accede to the request and prayer made by the petitioner either to permit the petitioner to deposit the balance 75% amount or to refund the 25% amount which is already forfeited by the respondent-Bank as per the Rule 9(4) of the Rules. 9. 8.6. It was submitted that the respondent-Bank therefore is unable to accede to the request and prayer made by the petitioner either to permit the petitioner to deposit the balance 75% amount or to refund the 25% amount which is already forfeited by the respondent-Bank as per the Rule 9(4) of the Rules. 9. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the entire transaction between the petitioner and the respondent-Bank has taken place within the lockdown period due to Covid-19 pandemic. In such circumstances, the reliance placed by the respondent-Bank on strict compliance of the Rule 9(4) of the Rules cannot be made applicable and the respondent-Bank is required to be directed to accept balance 75% amount of Rs. 31.50 Lakh with interest from the petitioner within a period of two weeks. 10. The request made by the petitioner to the refund of the 25% of the amount with interest which is already forfeited by the respondent-Bank is not granted in view of the fact that the same would be against the interest of the respondent-Bank being a secured creditor as the auction process has already taken place way back in the year 2020 and therefore the same would again entail the cost on behalf of the respondent-Bank for recovery of dues. 11. The petitioner is therefore directed to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 31.50 Lakhs with 6% interest per annum from the date of refund that is from 24th September, 2020 till the date of deposit with the respondent-Bank. The respondent-Bank shall issue the necessary sale certificate and title deeds and handover the possession of the property to the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No orders as to cost.