The rights of a mortgagor to redeem a mortgage under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 are subject to specific conditions, and the provisions do not apply when the mortgaged property has been sold in an auction and the auction purchaser has deposited the full amount of the auction value.

AM Bujor Barua, J.

1. Heard Mr. KN Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R Dey, learned counsel for the respondent Canara Bank.

2. The petitioner being one of the Directors of the respondent No.2 company stood as a guarantor for a loan availed by the said company for a financial assistance amounting to Rs.3.50 crores from the respondent Canara Bank as per the sanction letter dated 28.03.2008. The financial assistance was further extended for an additional amount of Rs.57 Lacs and, as a result, the total loan obtained was Rs.4.07 crores. The loan was secured by creating an equitable mortgage, amongst others, of 1katha 10 lechas of land of Dag No.29(old), 12(new) of KP No.166(old), 385(new) at Sahar Ulubari second part of Mouza Ulubari in the district of Kamrup(Metro), which was registered in the name of the petitioner.

3. But, in course of time, the respondent No.2 company could not repay the loan in the required manner, resulting in the original application No.75/2010 being filed by the respondent Canara Bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati (in short, DRT, Guwahati). The petitioner being a guarantor was arrayed as a defendant in the said original application. The DRT, Guwahati gave a final consideration to the OA No.75/2010 by its judgment and order dated 23.02.2012. By the judgment and order of 23.02.2012, a recovery certificate for an amount of Rs.5,43,60,738/- was ordered to be issued, jointly and severely against all the defendants therein which also included the present petitioner. It was also ordered that the respondent Canara Bank would provide the recovery officer with the contractual rate of interest for further calculation of interest pendente lite and future interest and that the charge of the amount under the certificate be kept alive on the mortgaged property shown in the schedule to the original application, which admittedly also includes the land of the petitioner indicated hereinabove. The said judgment and order is stated to have been passed ex-parte against the defendants therein and the petitioner upon being aware of the said order had taken steps for filing appropriate application for a stay of the order passed by the DRT in the original application, but such applications stood rejected.

4. In the resultant situation, a proclamation of sale dated 20.09.2013 in respect of the land of the petitioner was issued under the signature of the Recovery Officer II of the DRT, Guwahati. As per the proclamation, the on-line auction of the property involved was fixed on 30.10.2013, between 3PM and 4PM at the Tribunal’s e-auction platform.

5. In the e-auction held on 30.10.2013, one Ms. Anita Gupta was declared to be the successful bidder on 31.10.2013 and although the auction process was completed, but the sale of the auction property was confirmed in favour of the aforesaid person on 02.01.2014.

6. Although an appeal was preferred before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, at Kolkata, (in short DRAT, Kolkata) against the judgment and order of DRT, Guwahati, but the same was not admitted. In the meantime, the auction purchaser could not take physical possession of the auctioned property as the land of the petitioner is not partitioned and it was not physically possible for the petitioner to partition the same. Although an application was filed by the auction purchaser on 18.03.2014 before the Recovery Officer praying for cancellation of the sale confirmation and refund of the amount of Rs.1,81,80,200/- being the auction value of the land, but the Recovery Officer by an order of 24.03.2014, the said application of the auction purchaser was rejected.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant preferred WP(C)No.359/2015 for a direction to the respondent Bank from giving effect to the sale of the land made in favour of the auction purchaser. The stand in the writ petition was that the appellant is ready and willing to pay the entire amount to the Bank and, therefo