9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of execution process due to the death of Defendant No. 3. 2. Compliance with Rule 53 and 54 of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the reserve price and EMD. 3. Non-service of notice and participation of the decree-holder in the auction without court leave. 4. Right to redeem the mortgage. Summary: Issue 1: Validity of Execution Process Due to Death of Defendant No. 3 The Defendants argued that the execution process was null and void as Defendant No. 3 had expired and his legal heirs were not brought on record. The Recovery Officer dismissed this objection, stating that the Bank could proceed against other Defendants. The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and the Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the demise of Defendant No. 3 did not invalidate the proceedings. Issue 2: Compliance with Rule 53 and 54 of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The Defendants contended that the reserve price and EMD were incorrectly stated in the public notice, violating Rule 53 and 54. The Recovery Officer corrected the EMD error through a corrigendum and found no prejudice caused. The DRT and Appellate Tribunal confirmed that the sale process was in compliance with the rules, and the objections were dismissed. Issue 3: Non-service of Notice and Participation of Decree-holder in Auction Without Court Leave The Defendants claimed that Form No. 17 was not served and the Bank participated in the auction without court leave. The Court observed that these objections were not raised before the Recovery Officer and other authorities. The Court held that the Petitioners could not raise these issues for the first time in the writ petition. The Court found that the sale process, including the publication of notice and correction of errors, was conducted properly and confirmed by the Tribunal. Issue 4: Right to Redeem the Mortgage The Petitioners argued that they had a right to redeem the mortgage and the sale could not be confirmed in favor of the Bank. The Court noted that the Petitioners did not justify the delay in approaching the forum and failed to deposit the decreetal amount as required under Rule 61. The Court held that the Petitioners' conduct lacked bona fide and dismissed their application. The Court also referenced Supreme Court judgments, stating that once the sale is confirmed, an absolute right vests in the auction purchaser, and the Petitioners' right to redeem the mortgage was extinguished. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Recovery Officer, DRT, and Appellate Tribunal. The Court found no merit in the Petitioners' objections and confirmed the sale of the mortgaged property to the Bank. The Petitioners were directed to bear their own costs.
|
