AMBASANA METAL PARTS Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Draft amendment granted.

(2.) Rule. Mr. Samal, learned counsel waives notice of Rule for respondent No.1 Bank and Mr.Mapara, waives notice of Rule for respondent No.2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard.

(3.) The short facts of the case appears to be that OA No.161/01 was filed by the Bank for recovery of the outstanding amount from the petitioner and in the said OA, on 26.07.2001, decree/award was passed by the Tribunal for recovery of Rs.20,41,266.28 with interest. It appears that thereafter, the Recovery Certificate was issued and based on the Recovery Certificate, the property in question was ordered to be auctioned. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the offer was accepted for Rs.36 Lakhs, but the grievance on the part of the petitioner was that the property is having very high value and the offer accepted is by fraud and the petitioner was desirous to see that the other offer of other buyer may also be considered. However, nothing was materialised in concrete before the Recovery Officer and thereafter, before the Tribunal. The petitioner carried the matter before the DRAT. In the said proceeding of the appeal before the DRAT, vide order dated 31.12.2009, the petitioner who was appellant therein was directed to come with the buyer who was to bring the Bank Draft of Rs.50 Lakhs. It appears that when the matter was again considered by the Tribunal, the petitioner could not procure the buyer who was to come with the Bank Draft of Rs. 50 Lakhs. Therefore, the DRAT vide order dated 19.01.2010 did not extend the time and vacated the order of status quo and further directed that the possession to the auction purchaser may be delivered on or after 08.02.2010 and the main appeal was stand over to 29.03.2010. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner approached to this Court by the present petition.