9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d obtained a Recovery Certificate for a sum of Rs. 36,42,211.74 ps. After obtaining recovery certificate, the revision petitioner-Bank initiated proceedings for sale of mortgaged property. When the third respondent herein and others failed to comply with the demand notice dated 8-3-2000 order of attachment of immovable property and notice for settling a sale proclamation dated 12-4-2001 in respect of the mortgaged property of the third respondent herein situate at Gaganpahad village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District have been served. On issuance of Forms 16 and 17 notice, the third respondent and others failed to pay the amount, proclamation of sale dated 28-8-2002 has been issued fixing the date of auction on 17-10-2002. At that stage, respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a claim petition No. 3/2000 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad under Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 seeking to raise the attachment order dated 12-4-2002 in R.P. No. 487/2001 over the agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.10-31 guntas in S.Nos. 263, 281, 282 and 283 situate at Gaganpahad village. The Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad after enquiring into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is without jurisdiction and contrary to law in view of the bar imposed under section 18 of the Act 51/ 1993. It is next contended that against the order passed by the fourth respondent-Recovery Officer dismissing the claim petition in CP No. 3/2002, an appeal lies to the Tribunal under section 30. In view of the alternative remedy available to the claim petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 herein), suit, as such, instituted by them cannot be maintainable. More so, no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Recovery Officer for the action taken in good faith as per section 33. Lastly it was contended that under section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, such an injunction cannot be issued by the trial court. In view of the same, the trial court erred in granting ad interim ex parte injunction restraining the fourth respondent-Recovery Officer herein from discharging his functions. 4. Sri K. Pratap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 in his equal vehemence opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and would contend that the suit, as such filed by the third parties who are not parties t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Recovery Tribunal. Section 18 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in relation to the matters specified in section 17. Section 19 contemplates issuance of certificate by the Tribunal on an application made by the bank or a financial institution and authorizes the Tribunal to order attachment of the whole or any portion of the property as specified in sub-section (14) of section 19. On conclusion of trial, the Tribunal shall issue a certificate as specified in sub-section (22) of section 19. Against the orders of issuance of a certificate passed by a Tribunal, appeal lies to an appellate Tribunal under section 20 of the Act 51/1993. Section 25 prescribes modes of recovery of debts by the Recovery Officer on receipt of a copy of the certificate under sub-section (7) of section 19. Section 28 prescribes other modes of recovery by issuance of notice under Forms 16 and 17 and if any third party objects to the above recovery proceedings, he can move the recovery officer. The provisions of Second and Third Schedules to the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962 as in force from time to time are made applicable for enquiries of claims made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arties who claim rights over the property, which was attached for due recovery of debt by a financial institution, where the Recovery Officer issued sale proclamation, can file their objections to the attachment or sale of any property in execution of the certificate. The respondents 1 and 2 who are claiming a share in the property owned and possessed by the third respondent herein, who is Kartha of the family filed their claim petition before the Tax Recovery Officer who by order dated 1-11-2002 dismissed the claim petition. Against every such dismissal of the claim petition, the third party may prefer an appeal as provided under section 30 of the Act, notwithstanding the provision of section 29. If the third parties are aggrieved by the rejection of the claim may institute a suit as per sub-rule 6 of Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to Income-tax Act, 1961 and can establish their rights in the property, which is in dispute. Any order passed by the Recovery Officer rejecting the claim will be subject to the result of such suit, if any, and his order will be conclusive only as per the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court but not otherwise. When once respondents 1 and 2 moved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
