VALLIYAMMA Vs. RECOVERY OFFICER DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, though she pleads that she is pretty old and infirm, does not dispute the fact that she had provided her lands as collateral security for the loan availed by the third respondent from the second respondent-Bank. Recovery certificate was issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Recovery Officer brought the property to sale and sold it in auction for Rs. 7.50 lakhs which is Rs. 20,000/- in excess of the upset price fixed. After the auction sale, petitioner invoked Rule 60 in Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides for setting aside a sale of immovable property on deposit. Ext. P3 order W.P.C. No. 28824 of 2007 Decided on 28-09-2007 has been issued by the Recovery Officer on the ground that the said application was not accompanied by requisite deposit of amount due as per recovery certificate.

(2.) According to the petitioner, she filed Ext. P4 appeal against that order before the Debts Recovery Tribunal as an indigent person and the Tribunal has placed that appeal for report from the appropriate authority regarding her alleged indigency to consider the question whether that appeal should be entertained, as one filed by the petitioner as an indigent. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the Recovery Officer to keep further proceedings, on the basis of sale, in abeyance till the report on the question of indigency of the petitioner is decided by the Tribunal.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Bank.