kumara Ravikumar v. The Recovery Officer-1
Case brief
What is this about?
Keywords: e-auction sale proclamation; sale set aside; interim order violation; interim order subsisting; Recovery Officer-1 DRT Coimbatore; R.P.No.174/2019; TRC.No.267/2019; R.P.No.307/2017; DRC No.293/2017; O.A.No.30/2013 DRT Madurai; ex-parte decree 28.11.2017; Rs.29,44,916 with interest; instalments Rs.28 Lakhs and Rs.19 Lakhs; Rs.47 lakhs claimed due; Rs.3.19 Crores bank dues; Section 20 RDB Act 1993 appeal to Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal; Schedule-II Income Tax Act recovery proceedings; Indian Overseas Bank Sathyamangalam; Article 226 certiorari; alternative remedy before DRT; execution of decree; one-month window to appeal or settle; party-in-person borrower; Madras High Court division bench.
What did the court decide?
Sale conducted by the first respondent/Recovery Officer set aside (solely because the auction was held while the interim order was in subsistence); amounts paid under the interim orders (Rs.28 Lakhs + Rs.19 Lakhs) adjustable by the Bank towards the loan account; petitioner free to appeal (subject to limitation) or settle the dues; Bank and Recovery Officer at liberty to resume execution of the decree if no appeal, suspension order, or settlement occurs within one month; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.