Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (9) TMI 350 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2016 (9) TMI 350 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - TMI - Sale of the mortgaged properties set aside - orders of Debts Recovery Tribunal - HC refusing to set aside the sale of the mortgaged properties - Held that:- The offset price was fixed on the basis of a report of the Valuation Officer and in the fixation of the said price the respondents were associated being party to the proceedings before the DRT. That apart the said grievance of the respondents-borrowers must be considered in the light of the f .....

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 Second Schedule of Income Tax Rules, 1961 to which reference has been made by the High Court, in our considered view, does not impose such a restriction inasmuch as it is the Recovery Officer on whom such an embargo has been placed. In this regard the provisions of Rule 59 of the Second Schedule of Income Tax Rules, which permit the Assessing Officer to take part in the auction would be of a particular significance. In the light of the above, the conclusion of the High Court that the auction 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

Sr. Adv., Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv., Mr. Ritesh Issac, Adv., Ms. Aakanksha Nehra, Adv., Mr. Tanuj Aggarwal,Adv., For M/s. Parekh and Co. For The Respondent : Mr. Ram Lal Roy, Adv., Ms. Anjani Aiyagari, Adv., Ms. M.V. Rama, Adv., Mr. K. Ram Kumar, Adv., For M/s. K. Ramkumar and Associates ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The challenge in these appeals is against the order of the High Court dated 11.08.2014 by which the orders of Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, 'the DRT') and Debts Recovery Ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ectively with interest against two separate financial accommodation provided to the respondents-borrowers. 5. Sometime in the year 2003, the respondents-borrowers came up with a proposal for private sale of the mortgaged properties and accordingly sought and obtained permission of the learned Tribunal. Tenders were invited. However, the aforesaid proposal did not materialize. Hence the DRT directed the Recovery Officer to conduct a public auction after fixing the offset price in both the cases. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sand only) and 33,10,000/- (Rupees thirty three lakhs and ten thousand only) respectively. The Bank's offer was accepted and a total amount of ₹ 76,20,000/- (Rupees seventy six lakhs twenty thousand only) was deposited with the Recovery Officer by the Bank. Even at this stage the Bank gave an option to the respondents-borrowers to deposit the amount of ₹ 76,20,000/- (Rupees seventy six lakhs twenty thousand only) with interest from 03.03.2004. The said offer, however, was not act .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

entary proof with respect to their claim about the price of the property. They also declined to accept the offer made by the bank's counsel. Even while this appeal was being argued, the same offer was repeated by the bank's counsel, but there was no response from the appellant's side. It is therefore, evident that the appellants just want to put hindrance in the sale proceedings, thus depriving the applicant bank to recover its dues. It is pertinent to note that the OAs are still pen .....

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 been passed setting aside the orders of the DRT and DRAT and remanding the matter to the DRT with the direction to re-decide the matter after giving full opportunity to the respondents-borrowers in the matter of fixation of the offset price and also after complying with the provisions of the Rule 17 of the Second Schedule of Income Tax Rules. Aggrieved, the Bank has filed the present appeals. 8. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 9. Two grounds had prevailed with the High Cour .....

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