RAMESH MEHER Vs. RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, a successful bidder in an auction conducted by first respondent for sale of property belonging to third respondent, pursuant to Recovery Certificate issued in favour of second respondent in O.A. No. 399/2004 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, has come up in this appeal. The facts leading to this appeal are that third respondent, borrower from second respondent, owed to the second respondent the sum of Rs. 67,72,279/- along with cost and interest accrued thereon, in the aforesaid recovery proceedings. In that behalf, Recovery Certificate was issued in favour of second respondent on 16.1.2007, pursuant to which, property bearing No. 347-A, assessment No. 114/1A of Nittuvalli village was brought to auction through notification dated 11.6.2009; and it was put to public auction on 1.7.2009. The appellant herein deposited 10% of reserve price towards earnest deposit, participated in auction and, being the highest bidder at Rs. 1,25,60,001/-, he deposited 25% of total bid, amounting to Rs. 31,40,001/- on the very same day. In terms of the conditions of bid, appellant was required to deposit balance amount of Rs. 94,19,999/- along with poundage fee of Rs. 1,25,610/- within 15 days therefrom

(2.) On 15.7.2009 appellant herein deposited further 25% of balance amount i.e., Rs. 31,40,000/- instead of entire balance amount and sought extension of time to deposit balance amount of Rs. 62,80,000/- by filing application before the Recovery Officer. On 1.8.2009 appellant herein obtained a D.D. bearing No. 742041 for Rs. 62,80,000/-, which was equivalent to remaining balance amount. The Recovery Officer rejected the application seeking extension of time and by deducting Rs. 3,14,001/- towards the expenses of sale, ordered refund of balance amount of Rs. 59,66,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and that appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 23.11.2009. That order was challenged by appellant herein in W.P. No. 37978/2009.

(3.) The learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 1.9.2010, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant herein to deposit balance amount of Rs. 62,80,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. Accordingly, appellant deposited aforesaid amount in compliance with order dated 1.9.2010 in W.P. No. 37978/2009. In that proceeding, 30 days' time was also given to third respondent, pursuant to Rule 60 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Schedule II, to provide him statutory opportunity of safe-guarding his interest. However, third respondent, by filing objection on 22.11.2010 before Debt Recovery Tribunal, prayed for refusal to confirm the auction sale held on 1.7.2009. Thereafter, third respondent also filed petition in W.P. No. 10683/2011 seeking permission to deposit debt due to second respondent. This Court, by order dated 19.4.2011, permitted third respondent to deposit entire amount due as on that day. It is stated that third respondent did not deposit the amount and instead, filed another writ petition in W.P. No. 41059/2010, which came to be rejected on 5.1.2011.