CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs Sree Kailash Cashews on 8 July 2026

O R D E R

1. This Appeal has been filed under Section 30(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 by the Appellant, praying that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order passed by the Learned Recovery Officer in I.A. Nos. 229 (set aside) & 230 of 2015 (stay) and I.A. Nos. 473 (set aside) & 474 (stay) of 2017 in R.P. No. 12 of 2014 in DRC No. 12 of 2014.

 To set aside the order stating that the parties to the Lok Adalath have complied with the terms of the Lok Adalat Award dated 04.12.2014  To set aside the order directing the Appellant Bank to comply with para 2 of the Terms of settlement of Lok Adalath Award dated 04.12.2014.  To set aside the order directing the Appellant Bank to file appropriate petitions for recalling the DRC and for release of title deeds.

2. The brief averments of the Application filed by the Appellant is as follows:-

a) The counsel for the Appellant submitted that, the Respondents 1 to 3 herein have availed loan facilities from the Appellant Bank and committed default in repayment. Hence, the Appellant Bank filed O.A. No. 28/2008 against the Respondents 1 to 3 herein.

b) It is further submitted that, this Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to allow the said O.A. No. 28/2008 on 21.12.2013. On the strength of the order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, a Debt Recovery

Certificate in DRC No. 12/2014 was issued, and the learned Recovery Officer initiated recovery proceedings in R.P. No. 12/2014 against the defaulters/Judgment Debtors.

c) It is further submitted that, The Learned Recovery Officer issued a Sale Notice dated 17.11.2014, fixing the sale on 09.01.2015 and it is pertinent to mention that in this case, the Lok Adalat Award was passed on 04.12.2014 with the condition that the 1st instalment had to be paid on or before 31.12.2014 and the 2nd instalment had to be paid on or before 04.06.2015. It was further stipulated that, if the parties committed default in paying the agreed amount as per the terms of the Lok Adalat Award, they would be liable to pay the entire amount as mentioned in the Original Application. Since the 1st instalment was not paid on or before 31.12.2014, the Learned Recovery Officer conducted the sale on 09.01.2015, in which the 9th Respondent herein, Thiru. Ajikumar, was declared the successful bidder. Due to the interim order of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 944/2015, the sale was not confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser. Subsequently, the Respondents 4 to 8 herein filed petitions to set aside the sale conducted by the Learned Recovery Officer in I.A. Nos. 229/2015, 230/2015, 473/2017, and 474/2017. Thereafter, the auction purchaser, namely the 9th Respondent herein, got himself impleaded in the above petitions. After an elaborate enquiry, the Learned Recovery Officer passed an order dated 23.10.2017 setting aside the sale and directing the Appellant Bank to file appropriate petitions before this Tribunal for recalling the DRC and for release of the title deeds on the ground that the parties had complied with the terms of the Lok Adalat Award.

d) It is further submitted that, The Appellant Bank submits that the Lok Adalat Award was passed for a sum of Rs.47,80,000/-, in which the 1st instalment of Rs.10,00,000/- had to be paid on or before 31.12.2014 and the 2nd instalment of Rs.37,80,000/- had to be paid on or before 04.06.2015. In default of compliance with the said terms, the entire amount as mentioned in the Original Application had to be paid. The parties to the Lok Adalat did not pay any amount towards the instalment on or before 31.12.2014. However, the contention of the Respondents 4 to 8 herein is that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid on 23.12.2014, another sum of Rs.2,25,000/- was paid on 24.12.2014, and a further sum of Rs.7,25,000/- was paid on 14.01.2015 into the savings bank account of Thiru. Thambiraj, the 5th Respondent herein, totalling Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.50,000 + Rs.2,25,000 + Rs.7,25,000), and therefore the 1st instalment was complied with. Even assuming, without admitting, that the amount paid into the savings bank account of Thiru. Thambiraj was towards payment under the Lok Adalat Award, even then the Respondents 4 to 8 did not comply with the 1st instalment, because they had paid only a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- (Rs.50,000 + Rs.2,25,000) up to 31.12.2014. It is pertinent to note that the remaining amount of Rs.7,25,000/- (Rs.10,00,000 - Rs.2,75,000) was paid only on 14.01.2015, which was beyond the stipulated date of 31.12.2014. Therefore, it goes without saying that the 1st instalment under the Lok Adalat Award was not complied with.

e) It is further submitted that, the Respondents 4 to 8 is that the Bank should wait until payment of the balance amount by the Respondents 4 to 8, i.e., up to 04.06.2015. The Bank's contention is that, if the 1st instalment was not paid on or before 31.12.2014, then, automatically, as per the default clause of the Lok Adalat Award, the defaulters have to pay the entire amount as mentioned in the Original Application, and the Recovery Officer may very well proceed further. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Bank to wait until 04.06.2015, the last date for payment of the balance amount. However, the Learned Recovery Officer held that the Lok Adalat Award had been complied with and went to the extent of directing the Bank to file a petition before this Hon'ble Tribunal to recall the DRC and release the title deeds.

 The Learned Recovery Officer failed to see that the Respondents 4 to 8 had not deposited the amount mentioned in the Sale Proclamation, which is a mandatory requirement as well as a condition precedent for filing petitions under Rules 60 and 61 of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act.

 The Learned Recovery Officer ought to have dismissed the petitions filed by the Respondents 4 to 8 on the ground of non- deposit of the amount as required under Rules 60 and 61 of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act.

 The Learned Recovery Officer ought to have held that the petitioners had not complied with the Lok Adalat Award and that the Respondent Bank was at liberty to proceed further.

 The Learned Recovery Officer failed to observe that the condition making time the essence of the Lok Adalat Award had not been complied with. If any one of the instalments was not paid within the stipulated time, the Bank was at liberty to proceed further, and it was not necessary for the Bank to wait until the time prescribed for payment of the 2nd instalment had expired.

 The Learned Recovery Officer failed to observe that the 8th Respondent, in I.A. Nos. 473/2017 and 474/2017, had himself admitted that he had not complied with the 1st instalment within the stipulated time.

 The Learned Recovery Officer erred in observing that the Bank had never objected to or informed the signatories to the Lok Adalat that the agreed amount had to be deposited into a particular account. It was the duty of the signatories to the Lok Adalat to pay the amount awarded under the Lok Adalat Award into the loan account.

 The Learned Recovery Officer erred in observing that the Bank had received the said sum of Rs.10,00,000/- without raising any objection. Whenever a person makes a remittance, the Bank will receive the same. Merely because the Bank received the amount does not mean that it accepted the delayed payment.

 The Learned Recovery Officer failed to appreciate the recital in the Lok Adalat Award, namely, "to pay the agreed amount as per the above terms," which means and includes that, if the 1st instalment was not paid on or before 31.12.2014, the defaulters were liable to pay the entire amount as mentioned in the Original Application.

 The Learned Recovery Officer failed to see that the petitioners in I.A. Nos. 229/2015 and 230/2015, namely the Respondents 4 to 7 herein, had not even sought the return of the documents. Therefore, the Learned Recovery Officer granted a relief that was not sought for.

 The observation of the Learned Recovery Officer that the normal procedure to be followed was that the Bank should have filed a memo before the Learned Recovery Officer stating that the Award had been passed by the Lok Adalat and sought cancellation of the e-auction notice, since both the Award and the sale notice could not simultaneously operate as it would be prejudicial to the borrowers' interest and would be void ab initio from the date of

passing of the Award, is legally unsustainable. Had the Respondents 4 to 8 complied with the 1st instalment under the Lok Adalat Award on or before 31.12.2014, which was prior to the date of sale, namely 09.01.2015, the Bank would certainly have informed the Learned Recovery Officer of the payment made pursuant to the Lok Adalat Award by way of a memo, praying that the sale be kept in abeyance. Since the Respondents 4 to 8 did not comply with the 1st instalment under the Lok Adalat Award, the question of informing the Learned Recovery Officer did not and could not arise.

 The Learned Recovery Officer failed to observe that, despite being fully aware that the property had been put up for auction, the Respondents 4 to 8 remained silent and approached the Learned Recovery Officer only after the sale. The Appellant bank has submitted the following List of documents in support of its claim in the SA, which are as follows:

S.No. Date Description of Documents

1. 04.12.2014 Lok Adalat Award

2. 08.02.2017 Order passed by high Court in WP.944/15

3. 23.10.2017 Order passed by the Recovery Officer

3. On the other hand, the counsel for the 5th, 8th, 10th to 13th Respondent submitted that, the 8th Respondent is the owner of the properties comprised in Painkulam Village, admeasuring 60.5 cents in S. No. 190/3, 15 cents in S. No. 190/4B, 1.5 cents in S. No. 190/4C, 7 cents in S. No. 190/4D, 7 cents in S. No. 190/7, and 6 cents in S. No. 190/8, aggregating to 97 cents. The said properties were purchased by him jointly with one Thambiraj under a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No. 1318 of 2005, dated 29.06.2005. From the date of purchase of the said properties, we have been in possession and enjoyment thereof. At the time of purchase of the said properties, he verified the records with the Registration Department by obtaining an Encumbrance Certificate from the concerned department. On verification of the Encumbrance Certificate, it was revealed that the properties did not have any subsisting encumbrance whatsoever. Only after satisfying with the documents, the Sale Deed executed by him upon payment of the sale consideration to the concerned parties. After purchasing the said properties, the patta was transferred in their names, and he has been paying the taxes regularly to the Government in respect of the said properties. In the meantime, They were shocked to see the publication released in Dina Thanthi on 28.11.2014 stating that the 2nd Respondent had proposed to bring the said property for public auction on 09.01.2015 at about 11.00 a.m. Since the survey numbers of the property purchased by him as well as the property proposed to be sold in the public auction coincided, then, he approached the 2nd Respondent. On verification, it was revealed that the said property was alleged to have been mortgaged in favour of the Respondent Bank for the loan obtained by M/s. Sri Kailas Cashews. However, no such entry was available with the Registration Department, inasmuch as the same had not been registered with the concerned department, even though the alleged mortgage had taken place on 21.09.2004.

a) It is further submitted that, immediately upon coming to know of the same, as well as the Original Application No. 28 of 2008 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, they approached the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. When they approached the 2nd Respondent Bank instructed them to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. Pursuant to the same, thereafter, they approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai and expressed their willingness to settle the matter. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. Before the Lok Adalat, the case was taken up as D.R.T./MDU/LA-19/2014 on 04.12.2014. After due deliberations and discussions, it was agreed that a sum of Rs. 47,80,000/- had to be settled by Ramachandran, Thambiraj, and Ajithkumar.

b) It is further submitted that, during the course of the negotiations, the 2nd Respondent Bank informed them that a sum of Rs. 34,27,275/- was due and payable by M/s. Sri Kailas Cashews. It was agreed by them to pay a sum of Rs. 47,80,000/- in full and final settlement of the amount due from M/s. Sri Kailas Cashews. It was also agreed that the first instalment of Rs. 10,00,000/- had to be paid on or before 31.12.2014 and the balance amount of Rs. 37,80,000/- on or before 04.06.2015. The Respondent also agreed that no interest would be levied up to 04.03.2015 on the agreed amount, and that simple interest at the rate of 10% would be levied from 05.03.2015 onwards. Upon agreeing to the terms and conditions, they were directed to deposit the amount in an account to be opened by them with the Respondent Bank. However, the Respondent made every effort to protract the proceedings and did not accept the amount whenever they approached the Bank to receive the same, with an ulterior motive.

c) It is further submitted that, as per the instructions of the Appellant Bank, they opened an account in the name of Mr. Thambiraj bearing A/c. No. 3419039884 and deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 23.12.2014, Rs. 2,25,000/- on 24.12.2014, and Rs. 7,25,000/- on 14.01.2015. As such, the entire amount constituting the first instalment agreed upon by them was deposited with the 2nd Respondent Bank. Even after receiving the said amount, and despite being a party to the settlement wherein the outer time limit for payment had been extended up to 04.06.2015, the Respondent Bank attempted to dispose of the property to third parties without considering the agreement entered into before the Lok Adalat and in violation of the Award passed by the Lok Adalat on 04.12.2014. As such, the Respondent Bank is trying to breach the Award of the Lok Adalat.

d) It is further submitted that, the provisions of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, which is usefully extracted as follows: …"21. Award of the Lok Adalat: (1) Every award of the Lok-Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court or, as the case may be, an order of any other Court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok-Adalat in a case referred on it under Court Fee paid in such case sub Section (1) of Section 20 the shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870).

2. Every awrd made by a Lok-Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall be Every award made by a Lok-Adalat shall be final and to any court against the award".

e) It is further submitted that, the Respondent Bank and the Recovery Officer had predetermined the issue and made every effort to sell the property to third parties of their own choice. As, they were always prepared and willing to abide by the Award passed by the Lok Adalat dated 04.12.2014 and to settle the entire amount before 04.06.2015. Accordingly, they approached the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court by filing W.P.(MD) No. 944 of 2015. On 28.01.2015, when the matter came up before the Hon'ble High Court, the Hon'ble High Court directed them to bring a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and further directed that, meanwhile, no confirmation should be made pursuant to the auction sale. In compliance with the said direction, they obtained a Demand Draft for Rs. 10,00,000/- on 02.02.2015, and the same was handed over to the counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Bank. It is further submitted that, as per the Award of the Lok Adalat, they had to settle the entire dues before 04.06.2015. Therefore, in compliance with the Award of the Lok Adalat, they remitted the balance amount of Rs. 27,80,000/- to the Respondent Bank on 28.03.2015 and 31.03.2015 respectively. As such, the Award of the Lok Adalat was satisfied by them even before the agreed date, i.e., 04.06.2015. It is further submitted that, after settling the entire amount, they approached the Respondent Bank for return of the original Sale Deed, but the same was not considered.

f) It is further submitted that, the Writ Petition filed by them was taken up for hearing on 08.02.2017, wherein the Hon'ble High Court, after observing that they had settled the entire amount, held that, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate for the Recovery Officer not to confirm the sale in favour of the 3rd Respondent till he passed an order on the Petitioner's application. They were also directed to file an application within a period of two weeks.

g) It is further submitted that, in pursuant to the said order, they approached the Hon'ble Tribunal and filed I.A. No. 473 of 2017, which was disposed of on 23.10.2017. Recovery Officer No. 2 categorically discussed the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act and conclusively held that the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 17.11.2014 issued by the Recovery Officer in respect of the auction held on 09.01.2015 stood cancelled. Consequently, the auction amount lying with the Recovery Officer was ordered to be returned forthwith. It was further directed that the Bank shall file an appropriate petition for recalling the DRC and for release of the title deeds before the competent forum.

In the Submission, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent has submitted that,

h) After 04.12.2014, the Appellant Bank could not have proceeded with the e-auction notice dated 17.11.2014 or conducted the public auction on 09.01.2015. As per the terms of the Lok Adalat Award, the order of the DRT in O.A. No. 28 of 2008 had lost its force and was not even kept in abeyance. The Lok Adalat Award does not state that the e- auction proceedings scheduled to be held on 09.01.2015 could

continue. In such a situation, the e-auction proceedings held on 09.01.2015 were without basis and were directly in conflict with the Lok Adalat Award dated 04.12.2014. The Appellant Bank, having accepted a settlement in terms of the Lok Adalat Award on 04.12.2014, ought to have brought it to the notice of the Recovery Officer and called off the e-auction, as the final order in the O.A. and the DRC issued pursuant thereto had become unenforceable. The Appellant Bank cannot take advantage of its own fault and file this appeal when the Recovery Officer rightly set aside the auction sale held on 09.01.2015 in the light of the legal position submitted above. The Appellant Bank is bound by the Lok Adalat Award and is not entitled to file an appeal, as there is a bar under Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Therefore, the Appellant Bank cannot maintain this appeal against the order of the Recovery Officer, which, in effect and indirectly, questions the Lok Adalat Award dated 04.12.2014. Hence, the appeal filed by the Bank is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone as not maintainable.

i) It is further submitted that, the Appellant Bank received the entire amount agreed under the Lok Adalat Award as early as 31.03.2015, though 04.06.2015 was the time stipulated for completing the payment. The Appellant Bank never raised any objection regarding the belated payment of the 1st instalment, which was due on 31.12.2014 but was paid on 14.01.2015. The subsequent instalments were also received by the Appellant Bank on 02.02.2015 (Rs.10,00,000/-) and thereafter on 28.03.2015 and 31.03.2015, totalling Rs.27,80,000/-. Therefore, the Lok Adalat Award was fully satisfied and substantially complied with. The Appellant Bank never raised any claim to the contrary after receiving the entire amount on 31.03.2015. The Appellant Bank did not institute any proceedings claiming any balance amount due from these Respondents after 31.03.2015. Hence, the Lok Adalat Award stood satisfied much before the agreed date, namely,

04.06.2015. Having appropriated the payments made towards the loan amount, the Appellant Bank is estopped in law from contending otherwise. The Appellant Bank is not, in fact, an "aggrieved" party against the order of the Recovery Officer setting aside the sale, as it has not suffered any prejudice when the amount awarded under the Lok Adalat settlement was paid to and received by the Appellant Bank.

j) It is further submitted that, the legal position submitted above establishes that the Appellant Bank is bound by the Lok Adalat Award and is not entitled to file an appeal, as there is a bar under Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Therefore, the Appellant Bank cannot maintain this appeal against the order of the Recovery Officer, which, in effect, indirectly questions the Lok Adalat Award dated 04.12.2014. Hence, the appeal filed by the Bank is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone as not maintainable. The Appellant Bank received the entire amount agreed under the Lok Adalat Award as early as 31.03.2015, though 04.06.2015 was the time stipulated for completing the payment. The Appellant Bank never raised any objection regarding the belated payment of the 1st instalment, which was due on 31.12.2014 but was paid on 14.01.2015. The subsequent instalments were also received by the Appellant Bank on 02.02.2015 (Rs.10,00,000/-) and thereafter on 28.03.2015 and 31.03.2015, totalling Rs.27,80,000/-. Therefore, the Lok Adalat Award was fully satisfied and substantially complied with. The Appellant Bank never raised any claim to the contrary after receiving the entire amount on 31.03.2015. The Appellant Bank did not institute any proceedings claiming any balance amount due from these Respondents after 31.03.2015. Hence, the Lok Adalat Award stood satisfied much before the agreed date, namely, 04.06.2015. Having appropriated the payments made towards the loan amount, the Appellant Bank is estopped in law from contending otherwise. The Appellant Bank is not, in fact, an "aggrieved" party against the order of the Recovery Officer setting aside the sale, as it suffered no prejudice when the amount awarded under the Lok Adalat settlement was paid to and received by the Appellant Bank. The Appellant Bank, by its own conduct in appropriating the money deposited by these Respondents (vide letter), acted pursuant to the Lok Adalat Award. From this conduct, it is clear that the Appellant Bank did not accept the auction sale held on 09.01.2015 in favour of the Appellant in Appeal No. 5 of 2017. Therefore, by its own conduct in accepting the Lok Adalat Award, the Appellant Bank has admitted that the auction sale held on 09.01.2015 was without legal basis. Consequently, the Appellant Bank cannot be said to be an aggrieved party against the order of the Recovery Officer setting aside the sale.

k) It is further submitted that, the Appellant Bank never filed any application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal based on the Lok Adalat Award for issuance of a Debt Recovery Certificate after 31.03.2015 or 04.06.2015, stating that the defendants had committed default and that, after deducting the amount already paid, a Debt Recovery Certificate should be issued for the remaining amount mentioned in the Original Application. Hence, it is very clear that the Lok Adalat Award had been fully satisfied.

l) It is further submitted that, the Lok Adalat Award dated 04.12.2014 does not contain any decretal term to the effect that default in payment of even the 1st instalment would amount to a violation of the Award. Likewise, there is no condition to the effect that the order dated 27.12.2013 passed in O.A. No. 28 of 2008 and DRC No. 12 of 2014 would stand revived and that R.P. No. 12 of 2014 could proceed further. The absence of such a condition in the Lok Adalat Award assumes significance, and the resultant position is that only the Lok Adalat Award will prevail.

Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the above Appeal and thus render justice.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and upon perusal of the entire records, I find that Defendant No. 1 is a proprietary concern, Defendant No. 2 is its proprietor, Defendant Nos. 3,4 and 6 are the guarantors, Defendant Nos. 5,7 and 8 are third parties, Defendant No. 9 is the Auction Purchaser, Defendant Nos. 10 to 12 are the legal heirs of the 8th Defendant and Defendant No. 13 is the legal heir of the 6th Defendant. The Appellant Bank had filed O.A. No. 28 of 2008 before this Tribunal for recovery of its dues, and a final order was passed in its favour, pursuant to which a Recovery Certificate was issued in D.R.C. No. 12 of 2014. Thereafter, the learned Recovery Officer initiated recovery proceedings in R.P. No. 12 of 2014 and published an auction sale notice on 28.11.2014, fixing the sale for 09.01.2015. However, in the interregnum, the Original Application was referred to the Lok Adalat on 04.12.2014, wherein Defendant Nos. 5, 7 and 8, though not parties to O.A. No. 28 of 2008, participated in the settlement proceedings and agreed to a compromise. It is pertinent to note that the object of a Lok Adalat is to facilitate an amicable settlement of pending or pre-litigation disputes between the parties to the proceedings and not with third person.

4.1 The Lok Adalat Award dated 04.12.2014 specifically stipulated that the first instalment of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) was to be paid on or before 31.12.2014 and the balance amount on or before 04.06.2015. The records reveal that only Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy-Five Thousand Only) was paid on or before 31.12.2014, whereas the remaining sum of Rs.7,25,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty-Five Thousand Only) towards the first instalment was admittedly paid only on 14.01.2015. Thus, the first instalment was not complied with within the stipulated time. Once the parties voluntarily entered into the settlement and agreed to the payment schedule, they were bound by its terms. The Learned Recovery Officer could not disregard the admitted default in payment of the first instalment and hold that the Award stood complied with merely because the entire settlement amount was subsequently received. In the absence of any material showing that the Appellant Bank had expressly extended the time for payment or waived the default, acceptance of the subsequent payments cannot amount to modification of the terms of the Lok Adalat Award. Further, the direction issued by the Learned Recovery Officer requiring the Appellant Bank to file an application for recalling the Debt Recovery Certificate and releasing the title deeds was beyond the scope of the proceedings. Equally untenable is the contention that the Bank was obliged to keep the auction proceedings in abeyance until 04.06.2015 despite the admitted default in payment of the first instalment. Once the borrowers failed to comply with the initial condition of the settlement, the Bank was entitled to continue the recovery proceedings in accordance with law, there being no prohibition under the Award or any subsequent judicial order. Therefore, the order dated 23.10.2017 passed by the Learned Recovery Officer in I.A. Nos.229 of 2015, 230 of 2015, 473 of 2017 and 474 of 2017 in R.P. No.12 of 2014 is legally unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The Learned Recovery Officer shall proceed with R.P. No.12 of 2014 from the stage at which it stood prior to the impugned order and take all consequential steps in accordance with law. It is made clear that such consequential proceedings shall be carried out in conformity with the findings and directions issued by this Tribunal in the connected appeal arising out of the same impugned order, insofar as the rights of the auction purchaser, confirmation of the auction sale, issuance of the Sale Certificate, and refund of the settlement amount to the respondents are concerned. In this result, the Appeal No.06/2017 is allowed.

Dictated to LDC (KK), taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court in this the 08th July, 2026. Sd/- (SEEMA SINHA) PRESIDING OFFICER

Uploaded on 18.07.2026