AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
COMMON ORDER
Learned Counsel for both sides are present.
These appeals are filed against the interim orders passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai in IA 4077/2024 and IA No. 4078/2024 on 3.2.2025 in SA No. 456/2024.
It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for Appellant that on 22.7.2024, the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai passed an order in the stay application IA 2508/2024 whereby confirmation of the sale, if any, held in pursuance of the sale notice dated 27.6.2024 was stayed subject to payment of Rs.1.00 lakh on or before 31.7.2024, the date of sale, and 40% of the remaining balance amount of Rs.19,19,516/- in 3 equal instalments to the Respondent Bank.
It is further submitted that the Respondent herein had complied with payment of Rs.1.00 lakh and defaulted in making the rest of the payments. Thereafter, IA 4077/2024 was filed for condoning the delay in paying the amount. IA 4078/2024 was filed seeking extension of time for making the payment. On the basis of these applications, Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai condoned the delay of 30 days in making the payment and directed the Respondent herein to pay the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th instalments on or before 5.2.2025. The Bank was directed to keep the amount in no lien account. Aggrieved against this order, this appeal is filed. It is further submitted that once the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th instalments had not been paid, the interim order granted got vacated and, therefore, the sale was confirmed and sale certificate was issued.
Learned Counsel for Respondent submitted that he had complied with the first part of the condition and the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai granted extension of time sought in IA 4078/2024. To a query as to whether the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th instalments had been paid after the extension was given by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai, Learned Counsel for Respondent answered in the negative.
Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
This appeal is filed only against the interim order. SA 456/2024, filed to challenge the sale notice dated 27.6.2024, is still pending. The interim order was granted only to stay the confirmation of the sale and not the sale. It is a settled proposition of law that once the sale notice is published, the right of redemption is lost. Here, in this case, sale notice was published, then the sale notice was challenged. There was no stay in the conduct of the sale. Admittedly, the conditional order passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai was only for staying the confirmation of sale by the Respondent Bank and the condition was not complied in full. The merits of the challenge to the sale notice have to be decided only in the SA 456/2024.
Thus, this Tribunal finds that there is no need to keep this appeal pending.
Accordingly, this appeal is disposed with the direction to the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai to dispose SA 456/2024, as expeditiously as possible.