Whether Recovery Officer has power to extend time for payment of auction amount? – M/s. Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Recovery Officer-II, DRT – Andhra Pradesh High Court
April 26, 2022
The Court observes that whether the Recovery Officer was right in issuing notices to the auction purchaser for payment of balance 75%, after expiry of 15 days time from the date of auction? Instant case is not one where there was any condition in the Sale Notice giving power to the Recovery Officer for extension of time. But, here is a case where the amount could not be paid by the auction purchaser due to an interim order passed by the High Court at the instance of the borrower and the subsequent order passed by the High Court at the instance of the borrower, who ultimately failed to succeed in the Writ Petitions filed by him. Some leverage of time should be given to the Recovery Officer to verify the fact situation and then proceed further, as directed by the High Court, more so, when no time-limit was fixed by the Court in its interim order. Further, the issuance of notice to auction purchaser by the Recovery officer cannot be found fault, for the reason, that the Hon'ble Court in its interim order, gave such power to him, namely, issuance of sale certificate, which can be only after payment of balance 75% of sale consideration, for which a notice is required to be given.
