Florican Prime Land LLP Vs Recovery Officer (Kerala High Court)
Conclusion: Time for remitting the balance bid amount in an e-auction conducted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) could be extended by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, in exceptional and appropriate cases.
Held: Assessee-LLP had emerged as the highest bidder in an e-auction offering Rs. 5.54 crore for a mortgaged property. As required under Rule 57(1) of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, it deposited 25% of the bid amount, including EMD, on the same day. The balance of 75% was due on or before 10.01.2025. Due to unforeseen financial delays, assessee remitted a part of the remaining amount and filed an application seeking an extension of 20 days to remit the balance sum. This request was rejected by the Recovery Officer. Assessee approached the High Court through a writ petition. The High Court initially granted interim relief by deferring coercive proceedings and later extended the deadline for making the full payment. Assessee-LLP eventually deposited the entire bid amount on 27.02.2025, within the time allowed by the court. During this, Asteria Avenues LLP and another unsuccessful bidder filed a separate writ petition seeking confirmation of the sale in their favour. The bank argued that the bid had already attained finality and the entire amount was duly received within the timeline extended by the High Court. It was held that DRT did not have the power to enlarge the time for deposit, but the High Court under Article 226 does possess such authority in exceptional circumstances. Since the successful bidder had paid the full amount within the court-extended timeline, the court held that no further relief was necessary in that writ petition. The writ petition filed by Asteria Avenues LLP and Rekha Jain was dismissed.
