2019 (8) TMI 741 - HC - Indian Laws

Recovery proceedings - appellants are the purchasers of immovable property in an auction sale conducted under the Rules in the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - writ petition was filed by the mother stating that whereabouts of her son were not known and she was not able to contact him - HELD THAT - We are of the considered view that the Recovery Officer and the Tribunal have to dispose of the review and the appeal, untrammeled by any of the observations made in the impugned judgment. It would be proper for the parties to raise all their contentions, including the question regarding maintainability of the appeal and the review petition, before the authorities concerned. Additional respondents in the appeals has requested that a direction may be given to the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal pending before it only after the disposal of the review petition which was filed by the writ petitioner before the Recovery Officer. The review petition filed by the writ petitioner against the dismissal if already not disposed of, shall be disposed of by the Recovery Officer within a period of two months from today. Writ petitioner before the Tribunal shall be disposed of by the Tribunal only after disposal of the aforesaid review petition. The appeal shall be disposed of by the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of disposal of the aforesaid review petition. However, if the review petition has already been disposed of by the authority concerned, the Tribunal shall dispose of the aforesaid appeal within a period of three months from today. It is made clear that the parties are at liberty to raise all their contentions before the authority concerned and the Tribunal, including the contentions regarding maintainability of the review petition and the appeal. The Recovery Officer and the Tribunal shall dispose of the review petition and the appeal, untrammeled by any of the observations contained in the impugned judgment.

Issues:
1. Dispute over auction sale of immovable property under Income Tax Act Rules.
2. Challenge against ex parte order for loan repayment.
3. Writ petition for relief against auction sale of guarantor's property.
4. Dispute over son's property sale in auction.
5. Review petition against judgment in writ petition.
6. Death of writ petitioner during appeal proceedings.

Issue 1:
The appellants purchased immovable property in an auction sale conducted under the Income Tax Act Rules. The first respondent, a guarantor in a loan transaction, had her property mortgaged to the bank. After default in loan repayment, the bank initiated proceedings leading to the auction sale of the son of the first respondent's property. The first respondent filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs related to the auction sale.

Issue 2:
During the pendency of the writ petition, the son's property was sold in auction. The son filed a petition to set aside the sale and for re-conveyance of the property. The Single Judge disposed of the writ petition and the son's petition by issuing directions to the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal within four months.

Issue 3:
The appellants sought a review of the judgment in the writ petition, which was dismissed by the Single Judge. An appeal was filed against this order. The first respondent, the writ petitioner, passed away during the appeals, and her legal representatives were impleaded.

Issue 4:
The Single Judge found that the writ petitioner was not entitled to the reliefs sought as they pertained to the son's property, not hers. The son had filed applications and appeals regarding the auction sale of his property, indicating his availability despite claims of being absconding.

Issue 5:
The Single Judge clarified that the various prayers in the writ petition could not be considered due to valid proceedings before the Tribunal. The appellants contended that the writ petitioner's appeal was not against the dismissal of an application but to set aside the sale confirmation and property delivery order.

Issue 6:
After hearing both parties, the Court held that the Recovery Officer and the Tribunal should dispose of the review and appeal without being influenced by previous observations. The judgment was modified to direct the disposal of the review petition and appeal within specific timeframes, allowing parties to raise all contentions.

This detailed analysis covers the various legal issues involved in the judgment delivered by the High Court.

← Previous Next →