HYDERABAD LAMPS LTD. Vs. ICICI BANK LTD. AND ANR.
LAWS(DR)-2006-9-12
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on September 07,2006

Hyderabad Lamps Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
ICICI Bank Ltd. And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.Gnanaprakasam, J. (Chairperson) - (1.) THIS Miscellaneous Appeal is directed as against the order dated 6.7.2006 passed in RA -12/2005 in MP -29/2005 in RP -128/2004 in OA -303/2002, by the DRT, Hyderabad.
(2.) THE appellant is the borrower and the OA filed by the respondent Bank was decreed on 18.5.2004. Pursuant to the same, the properties of the appellant was also brought to sale on 7.6.2005 and it was also sold on the same day. As against the same, the appellant preferred RP -128/2004 questioning the validity of the auction and the same was dismissed. As against the same, the appellant also preferred RA before the DRT and the same was also dismissed by order dated 6.1.2006. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed. I have heard learned Advocates for the appellant and the respondents. The learned Advocate for the appellant has raised several grounds in the memorandum of appeal and during the course of the argument, he has confined to the ground that the properties were not sold for a proper price and that the auction purchaser did not pay the balance of the sale consideration within 15 days from the date of the auction and, therefore, the confirmation of sale in favour of the auction purchaser is invalid and these things were not properly considered by the Recovery Officer as well as by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT. During the course of the argument, the appellant has relied upon the relevant provisions of the Part HI of the Second Schedule to the Income -tax Act, 1961, and also the Income -tax Certificate Proceedings Rules. 1962. The main contention of the appellant is that as per Rule 57, the auction purchaser, soon after the declaration of the auction in his favour, has to deposit 25% of the amount of the purchase money and the balance of the purchase money shall be paid by the purchaser before the 15th day from the date of the sale of the property and in the instant case, the auction purchaser paid only 20% of the sale amount on the date of auction on 7.6.2005, and the balance of 5% was paid on the next day i.e. 8.6.2005. The balance of the purchase money was not paid within 15 days from the date of the auction and it was paid only on 27.7.2005, and therefore, the confirmation of the sale in favour of the auction purchaser is not proper and the Recovery Officer himself has got authority to forfeit the amount deposited after defraying the expenses and the property has to be re -sold and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claims of the property or any part of the sum for which it may subsequently sold as provided under Rule 58. In support of his submission, the appellant relied upon the case of Rao Mahmood Ahmad Khan through their L.R. v. Ranbir Singh and Ors. 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 275, wherein the sale was held under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952, and under the relevant provisions under the said Act i.e. Rules 285 -D and 285 -E, 285 -F and 285 -G, 25% of the bid amount has to be deposited by the purchaser and in case of default, the land shall 'forthwith' be resold. In the said context, it was held: "The intention of the Legislature is that as soon as it becomes known that the purchaser has failed to deposit 25% immediately after he is declared as purchaser, the property shall be put to resale forthwith without any loss of time or postponement of the date of resale. The provisions of Rules 285 -D and 285 -E, which are similar in terms of the corresponding provisions of Order 21 Rules 84, 85 and 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure, are mandatory and sale in non -compliance with Rule 285 -D is a nullity".
(3.) IN Mudragada Suryanarayanamurthy v. Southern Agencies, Rajahmtmdry and Anr. , it was held that if the auction purchaser fails to deposit the full amount required for general stamp for sale certificate within 15 days, the sale is a nullity and the property has got to be resold and time for deposit cannot be extended.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.