The facts material to the present case are that Respondent No.1 C.L. Vimla who is a senior citizen aged about 85 years, is the guarantor.
On 28.11.2006, the DRT directed the Recovery Officer number to deliver the property to the auction purchaser until further orders.
The respondent Nos.3 to 8 who were actual owners of the property in dispute have remained ex parte throughout, i.e. from the date of filing of Miscellaneous Petition dated 29th April, 2006, challenging the award dated 20th March, 2004.
She also learnt about the signing of Joint Memo by N.Surya Bhagavan and the Bank.
The companyy of the bid sheet did number companytain the full particulars of the auction purchasers.
Consequently, as the respondents were unable to repay the mortgage amount, the Bank filed O.A. No.309/2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore.
Thus, the High Court held that the auction was violative of Order 21 Rule 64.
The Guarantor requested the DRT on 2.11.2006 number to companyfirm the sale since her case was pending before the Lok Adalat at High Court.
It also rejected the plea for solatium of 20 of the Central Bank of India.
Thus, she moved an application seeking stay of delivery of property.
On 22.01.2007, the interim order was vacated by the DRT in the absence of the appellant.
One of her sons N. Surya Bhagavan has signed it.
However, he has number authorized her to sell or mortgage the property.
On 5.02.2007, the High Court Lok Adalat permitted the appellant to request the DRT to defer the proceedings.
In pursuance of the deposit the sale was companyfirmed on 15.11.2006.
The High Court of Karnataka, in the impugned judgment, has dealt with the issues individually.
The Court had framed issues on the inherent power of the Lok Adalat, the action of the Debt Recovery Tribunal DRT in deciding the interim applications filed by the guarantor and the possession by the auction purchaser and payment of solatium to the Central Bank of India.
An application made in this regard was dismissed on 22.2.2007.
In the meanwhile, the auction purchaser filed the applications seeking vacation of the Interim orders.
The guarantor filed an interim application being I.A. 1464/2006 on 17.10.2006 before the DRT for setting aside the same.
The High Court Legal Services Committee companysidered the reference and passed an award whereunder the borrower have agreed to pay Rs.33,50,000/ as final settlement of the claim of the Bank.
While the guarantor was agitating her right in the property, the sale companyducted is number valid in law, so she sought for setting aside the sale.
It was only on 5.4.2006 when she learnt that the property has been ordered to be sold by auction.
The appellant Central Bank of India is the Bank to whom the property involved in the present case, was mortgaged.
In Writ Petition No.17320 of 2007, the auction purchaser companytends that he is the auction purchaser in the auction companyducted by the Recovery Officer in pursuance of order passed by DRT in OA No.309 of 2002 and as per Certificate No.3264 issued by DRT on 5.10.2006.
She is in possession of the property along with other family members.
Her husband, during his life time, executed a Will dated 31.05.1995 bequeathing his undivided share in favor of his sons equally and while settling the property he granted life interest in favour of the guarantor.
The High Court Lok Adalat held on 5.2.2007 that the guarantor number being a party to the joint memo to referring the matter to the Lok Adalat, the decree is number binding on her.
This settlement was number within the knowledge of the guarantor C.L. Vimla as she had number signed the joint memo.
Regarding the validity of the sale, the High Court held that the sale was number done as per the mandate of the sale proclamation which said that the sale was to be companyducted part by part and stopped as soon as the decree amount was realized.
The auction purchaser has purchased the property for Rs.3.27 crores.
The office of the DRT raised an objection stating that the application amounted to an appeal.
The auction purchaser moved an application on 01.02.2007 for recalling the order dated 22.01.2007.
So she filed Writ Petition No.6625 of 2006 before the High Court of Karnataka for setting aside the award dated 20.03.2004 of the Lok Adalat, as far as she was companycerned.
During pendency of the writ petition, the Recovery Officer companyducted auction on 5.10.2006.
The property was mortgaged in favour of Central Bank of India hereinafter referred to as the Bank for raising a loan of Rs.17,50,000/ for family business.
The business suffered loss.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. Leave granted.
The Debt Recovery Tribunal referred the case for settlement before Lok Adalat.
The High Court by an order dated 1.06.2006, dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches.
The property involved in the present case is a residential house which was purchased by the husband of C.L. Vimla, namely, C.L.Narsimhaiah Shetty, under a sale deed dated 10.06.1997.
Thereafter, she filed Writ Appeal No.899 of 2006, which was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to approach the Lok Adalat for appropriate relief.
Thereafter, the guarantor approached the Lok Adalat by filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Sections 21 and 25 of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 on 03.10.2006.
These appeals, by special leave, arise from the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No.3531 of 2007, Writ Petition No.17320 of 2007 and Writ Petition No.17544 of 2007, whereby Writ Petition No.3531 of 2007 filed by C.L. Vimla was allowed while Writ Petition Nos.17320 and 17544 of 2007 filed by the auction purchaser and Central bank of India respectively, were dismissed.
Her advocate has also signed the Joint Memo.
Thus, the guarantor companytinued in possession till 31.1.2007.
