GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (2) TMI 42 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2016 (2) TMI 42 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - TMI - Non-deposit of the entire amount as envisaged under rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act - Recovery proceedings - whether the provisions of rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act have not been satisfied by the respondents No.1 to 3 and hence, the sale in favour of the petitioners could not have been set aside? - Held that:- On a reading of the proclamation for sale as a whole, it is not possible to state that the same spe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ses of the proceedings for recovery thereof and says that the sale is for satisfaction of such certificate. Therefore, the amount specified in the sale proclamation would come to the amount specified as payable till 30th June, 2006 plus interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the sum of ₹ 71,88,819.87 paise from 30th June, 2006 till 28th November, 2006 namely, the date of publication of the proclamation of sale. In view of the provisions of rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s, the fact remains that the total amount as specified in the proclamation of sale was not deposited within the prescribed period. In the opinion of this court, while equity may favour the certified debtor, the case cannot be decided on the basis of equities when the statutory provision is clear and unambiguous.

As contemplated under rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Act was required to be deposited within a period of thirty days from the date of the sale. Albeit the shortfall is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

first respondent for setting aside the sale held on 8th January 2007, could not have been allowed. The impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal setting aside the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal and confirming the order passed by the Recovery Officer setting aside the sale in favour of the petitioners, therefore, cannot be sustained. 23. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17981 of 2015 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al at Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal ) in Appeal No.223/2007 whereby the appeal has been allowed and the order dated 18th May, 2007 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Appeal No.11/2007 has been set aside and the order dated 15th February, 2007 passed by the Recovery Officer in Recovery Proceeding No.153/2006 setting aside the sale of the property to the petitioners in the auction held on 8th January, 2007 has been restored. 2. The facts stated briefl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

etres owned by the first respondent and land bearing Survey No.187/P admeasuring 8280.51 square metres owned by the third respondent both situated at mauje Karannagar, taluka Kadi, district Mehsana were put to public auction on 8th January, 2007. 2.1 In the said public auction, twelve bidders participated and the highest offer of ₹ 1.35 crores of the petitioners came to be accepted by the Recovery Officer by an order dated 8th January, 2007. As per the terms and condition of auction, the p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

first respondent submitted that he had deposited a sum of ₹ 1,27,30,527/- being the amount specified in the sale proclamation, a sum of ₹ 6,75,000/- for payment to the purchaser as penalty equal to 5% of the purchase money and a sum of ₹ 3,01,290/- towards interest at the rate of 15% from the date of sale proclamation till 25th January, 2007. It is the case of the petitioners that such application was opposed by the fourth respondent Bank to the effect that an amount of ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

objections dated 9th February, 2007 before the Recovery Officer opposing the application filed by the first respondent under rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Act. It appears that on 9th February, 2007, the first respondent deposited an amount of ₹ 2,80,000/- towards the shortfall, if any, and an amount of ₹ 77,647/- came to be deposited on 13th February, 2007 upon being served with a copy of the calculation sheet by the fourth respondent - Bank. It was the case of the petitione .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

chment on the said property and directed the fourth respondent - Bank to hand over the original documents to the respondents No.1 to 3 (certified debtors) and file compliance affidavit. It appears that the petitioners filed an application before the Recovery Officer to stay the above order; however, such application came to be rejected on 15th February, 2007. That on 19th February, 2007, the Recovery Officer pursuant to an application filed by the fourth respondent - Bank inter alia stated that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under section 30 of the RDDBFI Act being Appeal No.11/2007. By an order dated 18th May, 2007, the appeal came to be allowed and the order dated 15th February, 2007 passed by the Recovery Officer came to be set aside and the sale came to be confirmed in favour of the petitioners. The said order, however, was stayed for a period of one month on an application made by the respondents No.1 to 3. The respondents No.1 to 3 preferred an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai bein .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act to point out that under the said rule, the defaulter or any person whose interest is affected by the sale, can, at any time within thirty days from the date of the sale, apply to the Tax Recovery Officer to set aside the sale upon his depositing the amount specified in the proclamation of sale as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered, with interest thereon at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum, calculated from the date of the proclamatio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

costs, charges and expenses of the proceedings for recovery thereof. It was pointed out that the sale proclamation also provides that on 30th June, 2006, the sum payable was ₹ 1,27,30,527.00 paise includings and interests. It was submitted that the sale proclamation was published on 28th November, 2006. Therefore, the respondents No.1 to 3- certified debtors were required to deposit, in all, a sum of ₹ 1,27,30,527/- together with interest from 30th June, 2006 till the date of procla .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the sale proclamation had not been paid, that the differential amount came to paid after the period of thirty days from the date of the sale proclamation had expired. Referring to the order passed by the Recovery Officer, it was pointed out that the Recovery Officer has placed reliance upon the provisions of Order XXI rule 89 sub-rule (1) which is an amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) as applicable to the State of Maharashtra and would not apply .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

setting aside the execution of sale and such amount must be paid within the period specified in the rule and if the deposit is made after the time limit, the application must be dismissed. The deposit made under rule 89 of Order XXI C.P.C. should be unconditional and unqualified and the decree-holder or auction-purchaser should be able to get the amount at once. The court indicated that the rule is in the nature of a concession shown to the judgment-debtor, so he has to strictly comply with the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt case, the interest for the period from 30th June, 2006 till the date of the proclamation not having been deposited by the certified debtors, the Recovery Officer was not justified in allowing the application for setting aside the sale and the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in confirming the same. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Annapurna v. Mallikarjun and another, (2014) 6 SCC 397 wherein the court followed its earlier decision in the case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t an undertaking to pay a certain amount is not payment and that the provisions of rule 89 of Order XXI C.P.C. are a concession allowed to judgment-debtors, and they must be strictly complied with in order to enable the judgment-debtor to obtain the advantage of the concession. Another pre-bifurcation binding decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatraya Krishna v. Jagannath Shamrao, A.I.R. 1929 Bombay 215, was also cited wherein the court placed reliance upon its earlier decision .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

since the date of the proclamation. 3.1 As regards the question as to whether such issue regarding non-deposit of the entire amount as envisaged under rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act was raised by the petitioners before the lower authorities, the attention of the court was invited to the judgment and order dated 18th May, 2007 of the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal to point out that such contention was specifically raised before the Presiding Officer. Reference w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sing the petition, Mr. S.N. Shelat, Senior Advocate, learned counsel appearing with Mr. Anip Gandhi, learned advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3 (certified debtors) submitted that the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal is sought to be challenged on the ground that the provisions of rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 have not been complied with whereas no such contention was ever raised before the Appellate Tribunal. The attention of the court was invited to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

proclamation of sale as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered. It was submitted that, therefore, clause (c) of rule 53 is consistent with clause (a) of rule 60 as both refer to the amount for the recovery of which the sale is ordered . Referring to the sale proclamation dated 28th November, 2006, it was pointed out that the sum specified therein is ₹ 1,27,30,527/- and in terms of rule 60 of the second schedule to the Act, that is what has to be paid by the certified debtor. I .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rt was invited to rule 89 of Order XXI of the Code and more particularly, to sub-rule (3) thereof which provides that nothing in the rule shall relieve the judgment-debtor from any liability he may be under in respect of costs and interest not covered by the proclamation of sale. It was submitted that, therefore, the certified debtors were not relieved of the interest for the period between 30th June, 2006 to the date of the sale proclamation which was not covered by the sale proclamation and he .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d that rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Act being mandatory in nature, even the provision contained therein regarding mentioning the specified amount is mandatory and has to be construed strictly. It was submitted that the deposit of the amount specified in the sale proclamation by the respondents, therefore, meets with what the legislature has prescribed and hence, the petition deserves to be rejected. 4.2 Reference was made to the meaning of the term specify in The Chambers Dictionary whi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

convenience to either the party concerned, or to an individual, but the court has no choice but to enforce it in full rigour. It is a well-settled principle of interpretation that hardship or inconvenience caused, cannot be used as a basis to alter the meaning of the language employed by the legislature, if such meaning is clear upon a bare perusal of the statute. If the language is plain and allows only one meaning, the same has to be given effect to, even if it causes hardship or possible inju .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

used are capable of one construction only then it would not be open to the courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such hypothetical construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act. The words used in the material provisions of the statute must be interpreted in their plain grammatical meaning and it is only when such words are capable of two constructions that the question of giving effect to the policy or object of the Act can legitim .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ittle doubt on the language of Order XXI rule 89 Civil Procedure Code and the relevant rules of the Civil Rules of Practice that in order to entitle the judgment-debtor to have the sale set aside under Order XXI rule 89 CPC only two payments have to be made namely, (1) compensation to the auction-purchaser equivalent to five per cent of the purchase money and (2) the decretal amount as indicated in the proclamation of sale for the recovery of which the sale was ordered for being paid to the decr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tted that the above decision would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and payment of the interest for the period from 30th June, 2006 till the date of the sale proclamation cannot be imported in the provision of law requiring payment in terms of what is declared in the sale proclamation to be the amount for the recovery of which the sale was ordered. Reference was also made to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Firm Birohichand Badri Vishal and others v. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lause (d) of sub-rule (2) thereof to specify therein the amount for the recovery of which the sale is ordered. Reference was also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Balram son of Bhasa Ram v. Ilam Singh and others, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2781, wherein the court was dealing with the question as to whether non-compliance of Order XXI rule 85 of the Code would render the auction sale, void. The court observed that the specification of the amount for the recovery of which the s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rchaser due to non-compliance of rule 85. It was submitted that the sale proclamation was drawn up accordingly and once the amount specified in the sale proclamation is deposited by the certified debtor, rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Act stood satisfied. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sukumar De v. Bimala Auddy and others, AIR 2014 Supreme Court 1000, was cited wherein the High Court held that the Executing Court was in error by not disclosing the amount which was to be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

deposited the amounts specified therein. It was submitted that the Recovery Officer and all the other authorities had gone into the issue and had accepted that rule 60 has been complied with. Reference was made to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent Bank to submit that the Bank is not disputing that the amount in terms of rule 60 has been deposited. It was submitted that the rule does not contemplate deposit of the interest for the intervening period. That no contention in t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ute that the amount deposited is in terms of the proclamation and that it is the prospective buyer who has come before the court contending that his right is infringed whereas no right has accrued in favour of the prospective buyer. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar and Others, (2014) 5 SCC 610, wherein the court found that even if there was some difference in the amount tendered by the borrower while exercising his right o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Karan Gupta v. J.S. Exim Limited (supra) and more particularly, paragraph 17 thereof wherein the court observed that it had in Tribhovandas Purshottamdas Thakkar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel, A.I.R. 1968 SC 372, held that the rule is intended to confer a right upon the judgment-debtor, even after the property is sold, to satisfy the claim of the decree-holder and to compensate the auction-purchaser .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ecuting court whereas in the facts of the present case, the entire amount as envisaged under rule 60 has been deposited within the prescribed period. It was submitted that the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Manaji Kaverji v. Aramita (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, in that case, the entire amount under the sale proclamation has not been paid whereas in the facts of the present case, the respondents No.1 to 3 have paid the full amoun .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o warrant for interference by this court and the petition being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed. 5. Mr. A.S. Panesar and Mr. Tejas Satta, learned advocates for the respondents No.4 and 5 respectively adopted the submissions advanced by Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 and also placed reliance upon the contents of the affidavits-in-reply filed on behalf the said respondents. 6. In rejoinder, Mr. Soparkar, learned counsel for the petitioners invited the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Tax Act without noticing the distinction in the provisions. Referring to the provisions of rule 60, it was submitted that what the same contemplate is that the certified debtor should deposit the amount specified in the proclamation of sale for the recovery of which the sale was ordered. Referring to the proclamation of sale, it was pointed out that the same was issued for recovery of the amount of ₹ 71,88,819.87 ps. together with interest payable at the rate of 12% per annum from 27th D .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

placed by the learned counsel for the respondents, it was pointed out that such decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case and on the contrary, the same are more favourable to the case of the petitioners. 7. This court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and has perused the record and proceedings of the case as available before the court. 8. The principal contention raised in the present case is that the provisions of rule .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by an application dated 25th January, 2007, Karnavati Steel Industries Limited (the applicant) prayed that the sale be set aside in view of the fact that the applicant was asserting its right under rule 60 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act by submitting a Demand Draft dated 25th January, 2007 for an amount of ₹ 1,27,30,527/- as specified in the sale proclamation for the recovery of which the sale was ordered as well as a Demand Draft for a sum of ₹ 6,75,000/- for payment t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for extension of the time limit to deposit the balance amount. Secondly, as regards the source of funds, viz. that funds so deposited have been deposited in collusion with some purchaser who has not participated in the auction. It appears that the respondent Bank (certificate holder) had also raised objections in response to which the certified debtor had given a reply dated 9th February, 2007 taking a stand that the amount specified in the proclamation of sale as per sub-clause (a) of rule 60(1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ly, stated that the certified debtor had complied with the provisions contained in rule 60 and prayed that the sale of the properties be set aside. A perusal of the order passed by the Recovery Officer reveals that the contention with regard to the amount not having been deposited as contemplated under rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act has been specifically raised before him. The Recovery Officer, in his order dated 15th February, 2007 has recorded that the certified debtor ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Bank as per the calculation supplied by the certified holder Bank and an amount of ₹ 6,75,000/- under rule 60(1) (b) of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as payment to the successful auction purchaser, as penalty, a sum equal to five per cent of the purchase money. The Recovery Officer has placed reliance upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Shyama Charan Auddy v. Bimala Bala Sen, AIR 1993 Cal 14, as well as the provisions of sub-rule (1) of rule 89 of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

le 60 of the Second Schedule of the Act had been specifically raised before the Recovery Officer. A perusal of the order dated 18th May, 2007 made by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal in Appeal No.11/2007 reveals that the petitioners had raised a specific ground that the respondent No.2 therein (the first respondent herein) had not deposited the entire amount as required under rule 60 of the Tax Rules; that thereafter the first respondent has deposited further amount before the Reco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Tax Rules would not be attracted. On the question of non-compliance of the provisions of rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Act, the Presiding Officer proceeded on the footing that the provisions of rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Act and rule 89 of Order XXI of the Code are in pari materia with each other and placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dadi Jagannadham v. Jammulu Ramulu, (2001) 7 SCC 71, and held that in view of the dictum of the court in t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o have applied for setting aside the auction in favour of the petitioners and that the same clearly showed that there was a common design on the part of the certified debtor and the third party to frustrate and defeat the legal right of the petitioners. He, accordingly, set aside the order passed by the Recovery Officer and confirmed the sale in favour of the petitioners. The respondents No.1 to 3 went in appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal under section 20 of the RDDBFI Act bein .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

further contended therein that the words for the recovery of which the sale is ordered has to be given effect to and that the respondent No.2 to 4 therein (respondents No.1 to 3 herein) failed to move an application along with the requisite amount and could not capitalize on the statutory concession conferred by rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is further contended that rule 60 is a statutory concession and in order to avail the benefit of the same the requirements .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the contention with regard to non-compliance of the provisions of rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 before all the authorities. It may be noted that the Presiding Officer had allowed the appeal on the ground that the payment schedule contained in the recitals in the sale deeds executed by the Certified Debtor in favour of a third party showed that the third party had made payment to the first respondent after the auction and that if the payments were made by the third p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s in the cross objections as regards non-compliance of rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Act, had not been examined. Nonetheless, such contention, though not dealt with, was clearly raised before the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the contention that it is not permissible for the petitioners to raise such contention before this court does not merit acceptance. 10. From the facts and contentions noted hereinabove, it is apparent that the entire controversy raised in the present case revolves .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on 25 of the RDDBFI Act provides for the Modes of recovery of debts , which include attachment and sale of movable and immovable property of defendant. Section 26 provides for Validity of certificate and amendment thereof . Section 27 provides for Stay of proceedings under certificate and amendment or withdrawal thereof . Section 29 provides for Application of certain provisions of Income Tax Act and provides that the provisions of the Second and Third Schedules to the Income Tax Act, 1961 and t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

come Tax Act which falls for interpretation in the present case reads thus:- 60. (1) Where immovable property has been sold in execution of a certificate, the defaulter, or any person whose interests are affected by the sale, may, at any time within thirty days from the date of the sale, apply to the Tax Recovery Officer to set aside the sale, on his depositing (a) the amount specified in the proclamation of sale as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered, with interest thereon at th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Second Schedule to the Act provides for Contents of proclamation and says that a proclamation of sale of immovable property shall be drawn up after notice to the defaulter, and shall state the time and place of sale, and shall specify, as fairly and accurately as possible, the amount for the recovery of which the sale is ordered. Thus, rule 60 provides for deposit of the amount specified in the proclamation of sale as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered and rule 53(c) require .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

osts, charges and expenses of the proceedings for the recovery thereof and that the Recovery Officer has ordered the sale of the attached property mentioned in the annexed schedule in satisfaction of the said certificate. The proclamation further states that as on 30th June, 2006, there will be a sum of ₹ 1,27,30,527/- includings and interests. 14. Thus, the proclamation states two things, firstly, that the sale is for satisfaction of the recovery certificate which is for recovery of the s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was due as on 30th June, 2006. The proclamation also refers to the contents of the certificate issued by the Presiding Officer, DRT which says that the sale is for the recovery of a sum of ₹ 71,88,819.87 ps. with further interest payable at the rate of 12% per annum from 27th December, 1999 till realization and the costs, charges and expenses of the proceedings for recovery thereof and says that the sale is for satisfaction of such certificate. Therefore, the amount specified in the sale .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

16. In the present case, it appears that due to oversight, or may be, due to a misreading of rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Act, the certified debtor paid the amount specified in the proclamation of sale payable as on 30th June, 2006 with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of the proclamation of the sale. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the total amount as specified in the proclamation of sale was not deposited within the prescribed period. In the opinion of this court .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hence allows only one meaning, the same has to be given effect to, even if it causes hardship or possible injustice. The contention that the amount specified is the amount specifically mentioned in the proclamation cannot be accepted for the reason that for a variety of reasons there may be a gap between the date on which the amount payable under the Recovery Certificate is calculated and the date of proclamation of sale. In the opinion of this court, specified amount must mean an ascertainable .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ertificate of recovery have also been mentioned in the sale proclamation, which clearly state that the sale is for recovery of the sum of ₹ 71,88,819.87 ps. with further interest payable at the rate of 12% per annum from 27th December, 1999 till realization, it is clear that the interest would be payable at the rate of 12% till the date of proclamation of sale, inasmuch as, in view of the provisions of rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Act, for the period subsequent thereto, the intere .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

89 of Order XXI of the Code, held that deposit of the requisite amount in the court is a condition precedent or a sine qua non to an application for setting aside the execution of the sale and such amount must be paid within the period specified in the rule and if the deposit is made after the time limit, the application must be dismissed. The court held that the deposit made under rule 89 of Order XXI CPC should be unconditional and unqualified and the decree-holder or the auction-purchaser sh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

been paid within the prescribed period, viz. thirty days from the date of the sale, the entire amount, to the extent referred to hereinabove, had not been deposited within the prescribed period but thereafter. Under the circumstances, applying the above decision of the Supreme Court, it is not permissible to allow the application made by the certified debtors. 17. In a pre-bifurcation binding decision in the case of Manaji Kaverji v. Aramita (supra), the Bombay High Court was dealing with a cas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ser, the purchaser opposed the notice contending that the first defendant had not complied with the provisions of Order XXI rule 89. On behalf of the applicant, it was contended that a part-payment of the amount due to the decree-holder, with an undertaking to pay the balance, amounted to a deposit within the meaning of rule 89 of Order XXI, and that, therefore, the person giving the undertaking was entitled to an order setting aside the sale. The court held that an undertaking to pay a certain .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case of Dattatraya Krishna v. Jagannath Shamrao (supra). 18. In the light of the law laid down in the above decisions, it is evident that the entire amount as contemplated under rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Act was required to be deposited within a period of thirty days from the date of the sale. Albeit the shortfall is very small, nonetheless, the respondents No.1 to 3 have failed to deposit the entire amount within the prescribed period of thirty days. Under the circumstances, the ce .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dealt with the issue and answered it against the petitioners by placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Dadi Jagganadham v. Jammulu Ramulu (supra) and holding that in the light of the said decision the question with regard to compliance of rule 60 has paled into the background and has become academic. It may be noted that in the earlier part of his order, the Presiding Officer has reproduced the contents of rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Act and rule 89 of Order XXI of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Act clearly prescribes an outer limit of thirty days from the date of the sale for making of an application. In the facts of the case before the Supreme Court, as a result of the decree passed against the respondent judgment-debtor, his property was attached and put up for sale. The sale took place on 22nd November, 1982. On 21st January, 1983, the 59th day following the date of sale, the respondent filed an application under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC for setting aside the sale. The application wa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l consideration to the question, we are of the opinion that there is no anomaly and that there are no different periods of limitation for making deposits and/or filing an application for setting aside the sale. It is by virtue of Order 21 Rule 89 CPC that an application for setting aside a sale and a deposit can be made. Order 21 Rule 89 CPC does not prescribe any period within which the application is to be made or deposit is to be made. All that Order 21 Rule 92(2) provides is that if the depo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rticle 127 of the Limitation Act. As an application can be made within 60 days and, as stated above, no period for making a deposit is prescribed under Order 21 Rule 92(2) the deposit can also be made within 60 days. Subsequently, rule 92(2) of Order XXI of the Code came to be amended with effect from 1st July, 2002 whereby the words thirty days came to be substituted by the words sixty days . Having regard to the scheme of the RDDBFI Act read with the rules contained in the Second Schedule to t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

me Court in the case of Rohitash Kumar and Ors. v. Om Prakash Sharma and Ors. (supra) is concerned, the same lays down that it is a well-settled principle of interpretation that hardship or inconvenience caused, cannot be used as a basis to alter the meaning of the language employed by the legislature, if such meaning is clear upon a bare perusal of the statute. If the language is plain and hence allows only one meaning, the same has to be given effect to, even if it causes hardship or possible .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he above decision, hardship or inconvenience caused cannot be used as a basis to alter the meaning of the language employed by the legislature. 20.2 As regards the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanai Lal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan (supra), it has been held therein that it must be always be borne in mind that the first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislature must be found in the words used by the legislature itself. If the words used are capable o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tayya v. Ghatam Suryanarayana (supra), the same would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, in the facts of the said case, the decretal amount as indicated in the proclamation of sale for the recovery of which the sale was ordered was already deposited. The court had observed that the payment of poundage could not be imported into the said provision of law. In the facts of the present case, the amount stated in the proclamation of sale for the recovery of which the sal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s not carry the case of the respondents any further. In the facts of the said case the appellant - decree holder with the permission of the court had bid at the auction. The appellant s bid for the amount of ₹ 23,500/- was accepted. The appellant did not make any deposit on the date of the auction and claimed adjustment of the decretal amount against the sale price. Admittedly, there was a shortfall in the sale price, even after the decretal amount was set off and the deposit made by the a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the sale which was rejected. The matter reached the Supreme Court, which inter alia held thus: It is clear that the sale proclamation is drawn up by the executing court after notice to the decree-holder, on an application for an order for sale made by the decreeholder which is to be accompanied by a statement signed and verified by the decree-holder in the prescribed manner and containing the matters required by sub-rule (2) to be specified in the proclamation, which also includes the amount .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the decree-holder to claim that he was misled by any mistake of the Court in the specification of that amount. The blame, if any, for the mistake lies squarely on the decree-holder. Moreover, the decree-holder knows best the amount to which he is entitled under the decree, and he does not have to depend on anyone else to furnish this information. A mistake for which the decree-holder himself is responsible cannot furnish a ground to the decree-holder to avert the adverse consequences on him of h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a Auddy (supra) is concerned, the same was rendered in a totally different set of facts and circumstances and would, in no manner, be applicable in the facts of the present case. 21. Insofar as the objection raised by the petitioners before the authorities below with regard to the source of the funds deposited by the certified debtor under rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Act is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of K. Basavarajappa v. Tax recovery Commissioner, Bangalore, (1996) 11 S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version