Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR & P. R. SHIVAKUMAR, JJ.
N. Prakash – Appellant
Vs.
Registrar, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai & others – Respondents
W. P. No. 13854 of 2014
Decided On : 08/12/2014
RDDB&FI Act, 1993 – Section 29, 30 – Income-tax Act, 1961 – Rules 60, 61 – Loan – Recovery of Amount – W.P. is filed challenging the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai/first respondent herein, made in M.A.No.67 of 2014 dated 6.5.2014 against I.A.No.82 of 2013 in Appeal No.16 of 2012. – W.P.No.13855 of 2014 is filed to quash the order made in M.A.No.130 of 2013 against Appeal No.16 of 2012 dated 6.5.2014 on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai/first respondent herein – Held, Possession of the property was also handed over to the auction-purchaser on 11.3.2009. – Applying the law declared by this Court in the judgments referred in the foregoing paragraphs irrespective of the merits of the lis between the rival parties, namely, the Allahabad Bank and the partners of M/s. Amar Timber Works, it is not open for anyone to assail the purchase of the property made by Sadashiv Prasad Sinha in the public auction held in furtherance of the order passed by the Recovery Officer on 28.8.2008. – In the above view of the matter, especially in the absence of any allegation of fraud or collusion, we are of the view that the High Court clearly erred while setting aside the auction ordered in favour of the auction-purchaser, Sadashiv Prasad Sinha in the impugned order dated 17.5.2010. – Court is of the view that the Auction Purchaser is entitled to have the sale certificate of Schedule-II property and the petitioner is entitled to get refund of the amounts deposited with accrued interest, if any. – There is no merit in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed – Petitions Dismissed.
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.
W.P.No.13854 of 2014 is filed challenging the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai/first respondent herein, made in M.A.No.67 of 2014 dated 6.5.2014 against I.A.No.82 of 2013 in Appeal No.16 of 2012.
2. W.P.No.13855 of 2014 is filed to quash the order made in M.A.No.130 of 2013 against Appeal No.16 of 2012 dated 6.5.2014 on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai/first respondent herein.
3. The case of the petitioner in both the writ petitions are as follows:
(a) The property comprised in Survey No.7/2A, 110 Kulathur Village, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District, belonged to one Kuttiammal. Petitioner is her son and he is the Cultivating Tenant in respect of the property to an extent of 4.40 acres. The said Kuttiammal stood as Guarantor for the loan availed by M/s.Sabari Paper Products and executed a guarantee agreement on 6.10.1998 for raising loan of Rs.7,17,716/- in Indian Overseas Bank, Pollachi Branch. Petitioner was recognised as a Cultivating Tenant in respect of the said property by order dated 28.11.1988.
(b) The loan amount having not been repaid by the borrower, the bank filed civil suit in O.S.No.123 of 1989 before the Sub-Court, Udumalapet for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,14,653.99 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and in the said suit an ex parte preliminary decree was passed against the said Kuttiammal on 18.7.1994. Thereafter, final decree application was filed in I.A.No.358 of 2002, which was also decreed on 20.10.2003. In the said final decree application, petitioner herein was impleaded as one of the legal heir of the deceased Kuttiammal, who died during pendency of the suit.
(c) For realisation of the decree amount, Bank filed an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore in O.A. No.43 of 2005 on 24.1.2005 and a recovery certificate was issued in DRC 45 of 2008 on 24.3.2008. As per the recovery certificate, a demand notice was issued followed by proclamation of sale on 31.7.2008.
(d) The petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.2113 of 2008 before the Recovery Officer stating that sale of Schedule-I property alone would be sufficient for satisfying the entire loan amount and exclude Schedule-II property from auction. The Recovery Officer dismissed the said application on 13.3.2009, against which the petitioner preferred Appeal No.1 of 2009 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. In the said appeal, I.A.No.522 of 2009 was filed for grant of stay of all further proceedings pending disposal of the appeal. DRT dismissed the said interim application on 24.4.2009. Aggrieved over the said order petitioner preferred appeal in M.A.No.278 of 2010 before the DRAT, Chennai and challenged the order dated 24.4.2009 made in I.A.No.522 of 2009.
(e) The Recovery Officer conducted auction and sale certificate was also issued on 20.7.2009. The said sale certificate was cancelled on 21.7.2009 by the Recovery Officer, as the appeal filed by the petitioner in M.A.No.278 of 2010 was allowed by the DRAT on 13.6.2011 directing the DRT, Coimbatore to take up Appeal No.1/2009 itself for disposal expeditiously. According to the petitioner, after the matter was remitted an order was passed on 13.3.2012 by DRT, Coimbatore directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs on or before 31.3.2012 and the remaining outstanding amount within 60 days for redeeming the property.
(f) The Auction Purchaser viz., the 4th respondent filed I.A.No.278 of 2012 for impleading herself and also filed I.A.No.285 of 2012 for reviewing the order dated 13.3.2012. The impleadeing petition was allowed on 3.4.2012.
(g) Petitioner filed application for issuing the certified copy of the proceedings dated 3.4.2012 and the same having not been furnished, he preferred W.P.No.11113 of 2012 before this Court praying for direction to the Presiding Officer to issue copy of the proceedings, wherein an order of stay dated 19.4.2012 was granted staying the order made on 13.3.20
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
