Published: · Source checked:
DRAT Delhi did not grant an injunction in Multani Oil Mill. Its 23 October 2026 order allowed the appellants to return to DRT-III, Chandigarh to seek impleadment of the auction purchaser and protection against further transfer. The distinction is important: liberty to request relief is not an order already restraining the purchaser. Order, paragraphs 3–4.
Order at a glance
| Detail | Verified record |
|---|---|
| Tribunal | DRAT, Delhi |
| Chairperson | Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain |
| Case | Misc. Appeal 377/2026; S.A. 367/2026 |
| Order date | |
| Parties | M/s Multani Oil Mill and others v. Federal Bank Financial Services Limited |
What had happened before the appeal
The appellants brought S.A. 367/2026 challenging enforcement actions under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. On 16 September 2026, DRT-III declined interim relief at that stage without first hearing the respondent. It directed notice and a reply. Paragraph 1 and reproduced DRT order.
That was a refusal of immediate protection, not a final dismissal of the S.A. The distinction explains why the appellate discussion concentrated on procedural steps and the persons affected by any protective order rather than finally deciding the enforcement challenge.
Why the auction purchaser changed the relief sought
On advance notice in the appeal, the respondent's counsel stated that the property had been auctioned and sold, possession had been handed to the auction purchaser, and that purchaser was not a party. Those were submissions recorded in paragraph 3. DRAT then disposed of the appeal in light of the parties' submissions. Paragraphs 2–4.
This note does not independently certify title, the validity of the sale or the date possession passed. It reports why an absent purchaser became relevant to the next application. An order affecting further transfer needed to be sought in a record that addressed the purchaser's position.
The operative liberty
The appellants were permitted to file an application before DRT-III, Chandigarh for impleadment of the auction purchaser and protection from further transfer, within two weeks of the appellate order. Pending applications were also disposed of. Paragraph 4.
The appellate order does not itself restrain further transfer, undo the auction, restore possession or direct DRT to grant the proposed protection. Those are materially different outcomes. Nor does the two-week opportunity create a universal limitation period for every impleadment application; it is the direction made in this appeal.
A useful relief audit before filing
For a similar procedural review, counsel can separate four matters: the enforcement action challenged, the present holder of the property, the persons before the tribunal, and the precise interim order requested. A prayer drafted before a sale may need reconsideration after the respondent reports a completed auction and delivery of possession.
That is a practical inference from the order. It should not be presented as a complete necessary-party doctrine or a conclusion that every auction-purchaser dispute must follow an identical procedure. Here the tribunal supplied a route to seek relief before DRT; it did not decide the proposed application's merits.
Questions about the outcome
Did DRAT stop the purchaser from selling the property?
No restraint appears in the operative direction. The appellants received liberty to apply for protection against further transfer. Paragraph 4.
Was the S.A. dismissed on its merits?
This order disposes of the appeal with procedural liberty. It does not finally adjudicate the underlying S.A. or the auction's validity.
A separate DRAT note on cancelled-auction refunds and debt payment illustrates why sale-related procedural relief and proof of recovery must also remain distinct.
Primary source and research scope
Official DRAT order, 23 October 2026, paragraphs 1–4; official original text. The analysis reports that decision as delivered. Primary source and statutory references were checked on 1 November 2026; later treatment has not been exhaustively established. No absence of an appeal, stay, variation or subsequent compliance is asserted.