AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Respondent Bank.
Petitioner claims to be the successful bidder in e-auction held on 03.03.2017
in relation to recovery of outstanding dues of the certificate debtor in O.A. No.
264/2012. In Recovery Proceeding No. 171/2014, the Recovery Officer, Debt
Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi invited on-line bids for auction of the properties
described therein, as per notice at Annexure-1. Petitioner participated in respect of
both the properties, but his grievances is in relation to Schedule-''B'' properties.
According to him, after deposit of 25% of the bid amount on the auction date,
on physical measurement of immovable properties in question, it was found to be
only 1.70 acres compared to what was declared in proclamation of sale i.e. 2.27
acres and 0.16 acres. The land also did not have an approach road and as such, there
were no easmentary rights. It is further contended on his behalf that the land is
actually a tribal land. Petitioner thereafter has approached the Respondent Bank
through representation on 17.03.2017 and claims to have made an objection before
the Learned Recovery Officer vide Annexure-4 on 18.03.2017. It is submitted that
auction is liable to be cancelled and the amount deposited by the petitioner is likely
to be forfeited as the petitioner has not deposited the balance amount, as per the
provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993
and applicable rules thereunder. The property may again be e-auctioned, though
petitioner was the successful bidder.
Learned counsel for the Respondent Bank submits that the recovery
proceedings are still underway before the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery
Tribunal, Ranchi. Petitioner should have approached the Learned Recovery Officer
through a proper application and after making requisite compliance including Court
fees, etc. Proceedings before the Recovery Officer for realization of the certificate
issued under the Act of 1993, are guided by the second schedule of Income Tax Act .
He has also referred to the provisions of Rules 52, 58 and 62 relating to sale and
proclamation of sale, procedure in default of payment and setting aside the sale
where defaulter has no saleable interest. If the petitioner has any grievance, he may
be relegated to the appropriate forum.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to move the
Learned Recovery Officer today itself through proper application.
Let him do so. Writ petition is disposed of in view of the aforesaid stand of
the petitioner enabling him to move the Learned Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery
Tribunal, Ranchi with a proper application for redressal of the aforesaid grievances.
Needless to say, the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal would consider the
plea raised by the petitioner in accordance with law, provisions of the Act of 1993
and applicable rules thereunder, after hearing the concerned parties.