Time to Deposit Balance E-Auction Bid Amount Can Be Extended Under Article 226 in Exceptional Cases: Kerala HC [Read Order]
The Kerala High Court ruled that DRT can’t extend the time limit but the HC can extend the deadline for depositing the e-auction bid amount under Article 226 in exceptional cases
![Time to Deposit Balance E-Auction Bid Amount Can Be Extended Under Article 226 in Exceptional Cases: Kerala HC [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Deposit-Balance-E-Auction-Bid-Amount-Deposit-Balance-Extended-Under-Article-226-txascan.jpg "Time to Deposit Balance E-Auction Bid Amount Can Be Extended Under Article 226 in Exceptional Cases: Kerala HC [Read Order]")
In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court held that the time for remitting the balance bid amount in an e-auction conducted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) can be extended by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, in exceptional and appropriate cases. FloriCan Prime Land LLP had emerged as the highest bidder in an e-auction held on 27.12.2024, offering Rs. 5.54 crore for...
In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court held that the time for remitting the balance bid amount in an e-auction conducted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) can be extended by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, in exceptional and appropriate cases.
FloriCan Prime Land LLP had emerged as the highest bidder in an e-auction held on 27.12.2024, offering Rs. 5.54 crore for a mortgaged property. As required under Rule 57(1) of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, the petitioner 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, the petitioner 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 on 09.01.2025.
Read More: New ISD Rules Effective April 2025: How Debit and Credit Notes Affect ITC Distribution
Worried About SME IPO Pitfalls? Gain Clarity with This Advanced Course! Register Now
The petitioner 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. The petitioner 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.
The single-judge bench comprising Justice N. Nagaresh observed that DRT does 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.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
