JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition, impugning an order dated 15.11.2018, passed by the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereafter `the DRAT') in Appeal No. 265/2016, captioned Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited (IREDA) v. Sh. P. Kanagasabhavathy & Ors..

2. The controversy in the present case relates to the question as to whether the petitioner is liable for the payment of interest and compensation to the auction purchaser of the mortgaged property on the said sale being set aside at the instance of the petitioner.

3. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the petitioner had furnished a guarantee for financial assistance disbursed by respondent no. 1 (hereafter `IREDA') to respondent no. 2, M/s South India Fuel Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter `the borrower'). The borrower had failed to discharge the repayment obligations. Consequently, IREDA filed an original application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (O.A. No. 174/2001) before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereafter `the DRT') for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,56,440/- along with interest.

4. The learned DRT allowed the said application and issued a Recovery Certificate for a sum of Rs.15,74,440/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 11% per annum with quarterly rests.

5. Pursuant to the said Recovery Certificate, proceedings for recovery of the debts due to IREDA commenced before the Recovery Officer DRT-I (hereafter `the Recovery Officer') - R.C. No. 15/2010. In the said proceedings, the Recovery Officer attached the mortgaged property described as land measuring 9.3 cents comprising Old Survey No.1675 & 1676, New Survey No. 4/6-4, Hindu College, South Road, Nagercoil Taluk, Agatheeswaram, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu (hereafter `the mortgaged property').

6. Two unsuccessful attempts to auction the mortgaged property were made and finally, the mortgaged property was auctioned on 09.03.2012, in favour of respondent no. 4 (hereafter `the auction purchaser'). The auction purchaser had offered a sum of Rs.55.10 lakhs. The same was the highest bid and therefore, was accepted.

7. After the auction purchaser had discharged the entire consideration, the petitioner filed his objections to the said auction on 09.04.2012. The petitioner objected to the auction of the mortgaged property on essentially two grounds. First, that the value of the mortgaged property was Rs.2.35 crores and had been sold at an undervalue; and second, that the description of the mortgaged property in the Sale Proclamation Notice dated 17.01.2012 was incorrect in as much as it had also mentioned (Door No. 122), which was erroneous. According to the petitioner, the correct Door No. was 122/1 and Door No.122 was a different property.

8. The petitioner also approached IREDA for settling its dues by way of a one time settlement (hereafter `OTS'), for a sum of Rs.65.5 lakhs. The petitioner also deposited a sum of Rs.57 lakhs in April, 2012. The petitioner agreed to pay the balance amount within a period of sixty days from 31.07.2012; that is on or before 29.09.2012.

9. IREDA also filed an affidavit before the learned DRT confirming that it had accepted a sum of Rs.57 lakhs after the auction of the mortgaged property in question and had further granted the petitioner, sixty days to pay the balance amount of dues. It also confirmed that it was no longer interested in proceeding with the sale of the mortgaged property.

10. The petitioner's objections to the auction of the mortgaged property was disposed by the Recovery Officer by an order dated 22.08.2012. The Recovery Officer did not accept that there was any material error in the description of the mortgaged property. Further, the Recovery Officer observed that the petitioner could apply to set aside the sale under Rule 60 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's objection did n