K Rajesh vs The UCO Bank on 29 January 2026

ORDER

1. This application is filed praying to extend 10 days time to deposit the balance 75% of the auction sale price with poundage at 1% in all at Rs.1,12,48,010/-.

2. It is stated that the applicant pursuant to the e-auction sale notice dated 19.11.2025 issued by the Recovery Officer, DRT-II Chennai participated in the auction and submitted a bid for Rs.1,46,00,000/- enclosing therewith the EMD amount of 10% of the bid amount. It is also stated that the applicant participated in the bide on 23.12.2025 and the same was also increased by Rs.2,00,000/- resulting in the auction sale price being at Rs.1,48,00,000/- to purchase all four items of the immovable properties and the auction was over by 12.00 noon on 23.12.2025. It is also stated that the applicant made the balance 15% of the sale price being Rs.22,40,000/- on the same day resulting the Ld. Recovery Officer issuing letter of confirmation and bid acceptance on 25.12.2025 notifying me to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,12,48,010/- on or before 06.01.2026. It is further stated that for payment of the said amount the applicant approached Central Bank of India, Mylapore Branch, Chennai for sanction of Rs.90 lakhs and the same was also sanctioned, however, there was a delay in completion of the formalities due to Christmas and New Year holidays. The said bank has now assured to release the said amount within 5 working days from 6.1.2026. Therefore, the applicant sought for time before the Ld. Recovery Officer but for the reason best known, inspite of knowing my difficulty, the recovery officer refused to extend any time in the matter. Hence this application is being filed seeking to extend the time for payment of balance sale consideration plus poundage fee.

3. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant / auction purchaser.

4. This Miscellaneous Application has been filed seeking extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration pursuant to the e- auction conducted by the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Chennai.

5. The case of the applicant is that a request was made before the Recovery Officer for extension of time to remit the balance sale consideration and that the said request was orally refused. It is not in dispute that no written or reasoned order passed by the Recovery Officer declining such request has been produced or is available on record.

6. This Tribunal has carefully considered the submissions and perused the materials placed on record. It is well settled that a Miscellaneous Application before this Tribunal is maintainable only against an order passed by the Recovery Officer. An oral refusal or oral observation of the Recovery Officer does not constitute an order in the eye of law and, therefore, cannot be subjected to challenge before this Tribunal.

7. In the absence of any written order passed by the Recovery Officer, there is no legally sustainable cause of action for the applicant to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Consequently, the present Miscellaneous Application is not maintainable.

8. However, considering the submissions made and in the interest of justice, the applicant is granted liberty to approach the Ld. Recovery Officer afresh by filing an appropriate application seeking extension of time for payment of the balance sale consideration.

9. The Recovery Officer is directed to consider such application, if filed, on its own merits and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, within a reasonable time.

10. Accordingly, the following: -

ORDER

MA Dy No.33 of 2026 is dismissed as not maintainable, with the above liberty and direction. No order as to costs.

Sd/- (SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY)

PRESIDING OFFICER

DRT-II, CHENNAI (Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 29th day of January, 2026)