The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with relevant provisions and procedures in conducting a sale, and the need for wide publicity and notice to all concerned in any future sale.

P.R. Ramachandra Menon,J.

1. Sustainability of the sale conducted by the Recovery Officer, DRT, Ernakulam in respect of more than 500 acres of land for a total sale consideration of 1.77 crores, bid in favour of the 3rd respondent, is subjected to challenge in WP ©13744/2007 on many a ground, legal as well as factual.W.P.(C) 24482/2004 filed by the State is with a specific prayer to establish the better rights of the State in respect of the dues from the defaulter under various statutes, contending that the "state dues" will have an overriding effect when compared with the other liabilities of the defaulter including to the Bank from whom loan had been availed by the defaulter. The basic points on which the petitioner in WP © 13744/07 addressed this Court are as given below:

(a) The sale has been conducted in contravention of the relevant provisions and procedures, without proper publication, causing the property of large extent to be sold for a throw away price; that too, after recording the satisfaction and necessity to have wide publication

(b) The petitioner undertakes that the entire amount due to the State will be cleared once the sale is set aside, particularly when the State is also very much desirous to have the sale set aside;

© The petitioner undertakes to wipe out the liability towards the EPF;

(d) The petitioner undertakes to clear the entire liability to the Bank, availing the benefit under the One Time Settlement'; for which negotiations are being made and the Bank has also come forward to have such a course, supporting the case of the petitioner to set aside the sale-

(e) and lastly, the petitioner undertakes that the hardships caused to the third respondent who was the successful bidder in the sale conducted on 30/03/2006 and who deposited the total sale consideration of 1.77 crores will be compensated to a reasonable extent.

2. With regard to the sequence of events, it is to be noted that the petitioner in WP © 13744/07 is the Managing Director of the Company "Priya Rubber Estate and Plantations (P) Limited", which was a Company constituted by the father of the petitioner, with the younger brother of the father, as another Director. It is brought to light that the mother of the said petitioner is no more and the father also took his last breath during the pendency of the proceedings. As on date, the petitioner is the Managing Director of the said Company and is prosecuting the affairs along with one Mr. Vijayakumar, the other Director.

3. The petitioner's Company had borrowed a sum of Rs. 19 lakhs from the 2nd respondent Bank in the year 1990 and the repayment could not be effected on time, as scheduled. The Bank filed a Civil Suit in the Sub Court, Kottarakkara, within whose jurisdiction, the property is situated. In the mean time, the Debts Recovery Tribunal was constituted; under which circumstances, the Civil Suit pending before the Sub Court got transferred to the DRT, Chennai. It was thereafter, that the DRT, Ernakulam was constituted, upon which, the case was transferred to the Ernakulam Bench of the DRT, where it was pending.

4. In the meanwhile, in furtherance to the steps taken by the Employees Provident Fund for realisation of the due amount from the petitioner's Company, the property was taken in possession of, by the Custody Officer. Taking note of the situation, the Bank filed a petition before the DRT for appointment of a Court Receiver, which was allowed, pursuant to which, the possession was taken over by the Court Receiver. This however was challenged by the Custody Officer by filing a CRP before this Court, where interference was declined after the final hearing and the Receiver appointed by the DRT was permitted to continue.

5. In the course of the proceedings, the DRT, Emakulam passed an 'exparte decree', permitting the Bank to recover a sum of Rs.1,84,53,258/- with interest and cost as specified and a 'recovery certificate' was issued in this regard. Pursuant to this, the Recovery Officer