MALATHI Vs. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 25 cents of land belonging to the 3rd respondent was mortgaged to the 1st respondent Bank. Default was committed by the 3rd respondent and the Bank filed O.A.672/1999 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Tribunal, 25 cents of land mentioned above was sold in auction on 6.4.2010. Sale was confirmed on 11.5.2010. 2. According to the petitioner, on 16.7.2008, she had entered into Ext.P2 agreement for sale of the property in her favour with the 3rd respondent. It is also her case that she paid substantial amounts to the 3rd respondent also. On the strength of Ext.P2 agreement, she filed Exts.P4 and P5 to get herself impleaded in the proceedings before the DRT and also to get the sale set aside. Those applications were rejected by the Recovery Officer as per Ext.P6 order. It appears that by Ext.P6, the Recovery Officer also rejected two similar applications filed by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the 3rd respondent filed an appeal to the Tribunal as provided under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (in short 'the Act'). That appeal was considered and rejected by the Tribunal as per Ext.P7 order. It is challenging Exts.P6 and P7, the writ petition is filed.

(2.) The right of the petitioner to apply to set aside the sale is as provided in Rule 60 of the 2nd schedule to the Income Tax Act. This Rule provides that where an immovable property has been sold, defaulter or any person whose interest are affected by the same, may at any time within 30 days from the date of sale, apply to the Recovery Officer to set aside the sale. Rule provides for two conditions for entertaining such an application. First one is that the amount specified for the certificate of recovery for the recovery of which sale has been conducted, shall be deposited. Second condition is that for payment to the purchaser as penalty, a sum equal to 5% of the purchase money, shall also be deposited.

(3.) Ext.P6 order shows that the auction was held on 6.4.2010 and sale was confirmed on 11.5.2010. The petitions filed by the petitioner were received in the Office of the Recovery Officer only on 3.6.2010. Evidently therefore, the applications were made to the Recovery Officer, the authority designated to entertain the application under Rule 60, much beyond the period of 30 days as provided in Rule 60.