S RATHNAVEL Vs. BANK OF MADURA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant Bank filed IA-893/99 before the Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chennai, for sale of house, ground after defraying the expenses of sale towards the petitioner Bank's claim or direct the 4th respondent in IA to take over the liability of the defendants 1 to 3 in respect of claim made by the applicant Bank and pay the entire amount as claimed in the Original Application. THE Tribunal by its order dated 18.3.2002 allowed the IA with certain conditions. THE Tribunal passed order stating the defendant is at liberty to deposit the sale consideration amount on or before 28.3.2002 failing which the 3rd party purchaser is at liberty to negotiate with the Bank to purchase the said property from the Bank and may purchase the property for the sale consideration agreed by the Bank and the amount be paid by 31.3.2002.

(2.) The Presiding Officer, DRT-I, has also observed in the order that in case the above said sale is not materialized, 3rd party purchasers Jayanthilal G. Surana and Anita Jain shall be at liberty to order to bring the property for sale by public auction in recording the sale. Aggrieved against that order the appellant has come forward with this appeal.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant further submitted that the period mentioned in the agreement for sale is six months by which the transaction of sale should be completed, that period was over and as it is there is no agreement at all and as the transaction was not completed within that period of six months mentioned in the agreement, the purchaser is not entitled for purchase of the property and the order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT-I, has to be set aside,