IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23079 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------- ABDUL NAZAR K., S/O. OM KUNJUMON, 48/863, KATTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, DESHBHIMANI ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANILKUMAR P.V. SRI.E.D.GEORGE SMT.J.RAJI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. THE DEBTS RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., THOPPUMPADI BRANCH, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.23079 OF 2008-V ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent. Notice to the first respondent is dispensed with. 2. The petitioner, an auction purchaser in proceedings before the recovery officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal deposited one fourth of the bid amount initially. He ought to have remitted the remaining amounts on or before 17.1.2008. Without doing that, within the said time limit, he filed I.A.No.366/2008 dated 17.1.2008 and re-presented it after curing defects on 7.3.2008 seeking to condone the delay in remitting the balance amounts. This was on the plea that the petitioner suffered an accident. However, no material was placed before the recovery officer in support of that plea. Nor is there any material in this writ petition evidencing that the WPC.NO.23079/08 . 2 petitioner suffered any injury as a result of the accident. 3. Be that as it is, the impugned order has been issued by the recovery officer holding that after the statutory period within which the petitioner should have paid the remaining portions, he would be entitled only to return of the amount deposited by him, less such deductions as could be made in terms of the statutory rules. The petitioner is aggrieved by that order. Stricto senso, within the frame work of the rules, the recovery officer cannot be accused of having acted illegally because efflux of time brings the consequence that has led to the impugned order. However, in any exceptional case, it may not be out of place for this Court to grant relief by directing that the sale shall be confirmed by receiving the remaining portions, provided certain equitable considerations go into, enlarging the amount payable as consideration for the same. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, by this WPC.NO.23079/08 . 3 time, it is noticed that an amount of Rs.1,23,210/= would be the simple interest at 18% per annum that would have accrued on the defaulted amount from the date of default, namely 17.1.2008. Hence, I am of the view that ends of justice would be satisfied if the petitioner is permitted to pay the remaining sale consideration and a further amount of Rs.1.25 lakhs as part of consideration of which Rs.75,000/= shall also be released to the Bank and the balance Rs.50,000/= shall be dealt with by the recovery officer, otherwise, in accordance with law. This will be sufficient to adjust the equities with the passage of time taken during the pendency of the proceedings before the recovery officer also. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is set aside for the limited purpose of letting the petitioner pay off the remaining outstandings and a further amount of Rs.1.25 lakhs on or before 5th of August, 2008, failing which the impugned order will stand revived and this writ petition will stand dismissed automatically. On deposit of the aforesaid WPC.NO.23079/08 . 4 amount, the sale will be dealt with as if the amounts have been paid within the due time limit. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl