M s Nishith Mines and Minerals Rep its Managing Partner P Devasena vs INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK on 27 October 2026

1. This interlocutory application has been filed by the Petitioner / Appellant to permit the petitioner to amend the relief in the above appeal as to set aside the order dated 24.04.2023 passed in MA Dy No.5/2025 in DRC No.131/2014 by the Recovery Officer of this Tribunal and consequently to set aside the order of forfeiture by the Recovery Officer for the purpose of refund of 25% of the amount of Rs.1,26,25,000/- paid by the petitioner towards purchase of the property on 30.05.2019 in DRC No.131/2014.

2. It is submitted that the Petitioner / Appellant participated in the public auction sale conducted by the Ld. Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 30.05.2019 after paying 10% of the EMD amount of Rs.50,00,000/- pertaining to the property in DRC No.131/2014 and in the auction sale the Petitioner / Appellant was declared as successful bidder for a total sale consideration of 5,05,00,000/-. It is stated that immediately after confirmation the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.76,25,000/- on the same day itself. It is also stated that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.1,26,25,000/- and time was given to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,78,75,000/- within 15 days from the date of sale i.e., on or before 14.06.2018 with poundage charge on Rs.5,05,010/-.

3. It is also stated that due to declaration of State election in Andhra Pradesh by the election commission, the code of conduct came into force and hence I could not mobilize the requisite sum to pay the balance sale consideration within 15 days time as per the terms and conditions of sale notice, hence the petitioner filed a petition for extension of time seeking 45 days time to pay the balance sale consideration before the Recovery Officer on 14.06.2019 in MA No.117/2019 in DRC No.131/2014 and it was dismissed by the Recovery Officer in 18.07.2019. It is stated that the said order was not communicated to the petitioner and when he enquired with the Ld. Recovery Officer, it was informed that the petition seeking

extension was dismissed by order dated 18.07.2019. It is stated that the petitioner filed the appeal vide App. SR. No.12177/2019 along with petition to condone the delay of 13 days in filing the same. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal as not maintainable. Meanwhile the borrower had settled the loan with respondent bank and the proceedings in DRC No.131/2014 was closed and subsequently the recovery officer forfeited the amount of Rs.1,26,25,000/- which is 25% of the amount paid by the petitioner towards purchase of the property and credit the same to the Government Account.

4. It is stated that in these circumstances the petitioner is left with no other option but to file MA Dy No.5/2021 in DRC No.131/2014 for refund of the amount but the same was rejected by the Ld. Recovery Officer by order dated 24.04.2023. It is also stated that against the said order the above appeal was filed seeking set aside the order dated 24.04.2023 passed in MA Dy No.5/2025 in DRC No.131/2014 by the Ld. Recovery Officer and omitted to pray for consequential relief for refund of 25% of the amount of Rs.1,26,25,000/- paid towards the purchase of the property on 30.05.2019 in DRC No.131/2014. Hence the present application is filed seeking to amend the prayer.

5. Despite sufficient opportunity, there has been no representation on behalf of the Respondent Bank. Hence, the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant alone have been heard.

6. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant and perused the averments made in the application. The amendment sought is intended to incorporate the consequential relief of refund of the amount allegedly paid by the Petitioner/Appellant and forfeited by the Learned Recovery Officer, in connection with the order under challenge in the appeal. At this stage, the question to be considered is only whether the Petitioner/Appellant may be permitted to carry out the proposed amendment. The merits of the claim for refund and the legality or otherwise of the forfeiture are matters to be considered at the time of hearing of the main appeal.

7. In view of the above circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the proposed amendment may be permitted to enable the issues arising out of the impugned order to be considered comprehensively in the main appeal. However, the grant of permission to amend the prayer shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the claim for refund or on the legality of the forfeiture.

8. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application is allowed, permitting the Petitioner/Appellant to amend the prayer in the appeal as sought for in the

present application. The Petitioner/Appellant shall carry out the necessary amendment and file amended copy within a period of 15 days from today.

9. The Respondent Bank is granted liberty to file its counter, if any, to the amended prayer. The Respondent Bank is also at liberty to raise all objections, including objections as to the maintainability and entitlement to the consequential relief of refund, at the time of hearing of the main appeal. All such objections are left open for consideration at the appropriate stage.

10. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are confined to the disposal of the present Interlocutory Application only and shall not prejudice the rights and contentions of either party in the main appeal.

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 27th day of October, 2026)