BINOD KUMAR Vs. RECOVERY OFFICER DRT
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS is an appeal for setting aside the order dated 9.3.2004 of the learned Recovery Officer passed in R.P. Case No. 16/2002 whereby the auction held on 13.2.2004 was cancelled.
(2.) The relevant facts of the case precisely are that in O.A. Case No. 82/98, certificate of recovery for Rs. 31,35,137/- with interest and cost was issued on 27.7.1999. Consequently, in R.P. No. 16/2002 steps were initiated for execution of the aforesaid certificate. The reserve price of the immovable property in question was fixed at Rs. 8,75,000/- as per valuation report furnished by the certificate holder bank. Several attempts were made for auction sale of the property in question but the sale could not be materialised. Lastly the property was again ordered to be sold by public auction on 13.2.2004 at 11.30 A.M. The impugned order dated 13.2.2004 reveals that bidders assembled on the said date of auction sale to whom, the terms and conditions were explained. Only two bidders had quoted their offer as follows :
Sri Mahendra Chouhan whose offer was much below the reserve price, did not participate in the public auction as appears from the bidding list. It is, thus, seen that appellant's offer of Rs. 8,75,051/- was the only offer. There was no enhancement of offer also. The auction money of Rs. 45,000/- deposited by the appellant was ordered to be retained and in the same order, the certificate holder Bank was directed to give its consent on the acceptability of bid amount in writing. On 9.3.2004, the certificate holder bank filed a petition and did not give its consent on the acceptability of bid amount on the ground of lower price. There was also a request of certificate holder Bank to explore the possibility for a better price. Solely on the aforesaid ground, the auction held on 13.2.2004 was cancelled on 9.3.2004. Admittedly, the offer of appellant was above the reserve price by a nominal amount of Rs. 51/- only. A perusal of the order sheet reveals that although, the auction money deposited by the appellant was ordered to be retained, there was no acceptance of the offer. On the other hand, the certificate holder Bank was directed to give its consent on the acceptability of the bid amount. Therefore, it is clear that on the date of auction i.e. on 13.2.2004, neither the offer of appellant was accepted not the appellant has deposited 25% of his offer amount as provided under Rule 57 of Second Schedule, and terms and conditions of sale.
(3.) THE provision as to payment of 25% amount of purchase money immediately and remaining amount within 15 days from the date of sale was mandatory as per the aforesaid Rule and terms and conditions of the sale.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.