9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, and that too after his failure to make good the initial offer of ₹ 21 lacs within the stipulated period had been unfairly entertained. Resultantly, the petitioner even successfully misled the Appellate Tribunal also to urge that he had a better buyer which led to inter se bidding. Thereafter, he introduced the father of Sh. Shivam Aggarwal and still later Mr. Anand Goyal as the intending buyer. Thus, introducing a new purchaser every time. Despite many legal hurdles in the maintainability of his appeals the petitioner has been given more than a fair latitude to furnish a better buyer. Clearly this process of inter se bidding cannot be carried on ad infinitum. The auction was held on 05.02.2007. No legal or procedural infirmity h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Recovery Officer DRT-II Chandigarh and on the basis of the reply given by the Bank, auction purchaser, report of the Court Auctioneer, it was concluded that the auction had been conducted as per Rules. Accordingly, all objections related to the procedure of auction were dismissed. However, the issue regarding offer of ₹ 21 lacs were kept open. Vide notice dated 11.3.2008, the petitioner was given one more chance to bring the best buyer for ₹ 21 lacs and deposit the amount within 7 days to show his bonafide. It was clearly mentioned in the notice that in case, he fails to deposit the amount within the given period, his objections would be dismissed and the sale would stand confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 05.02.2007, it was observed that the same had been done to rectify an error as the earlier date i.e. 28.01.2007 happened to be a Sunday. Proper intimation, publicity and publication was given regarding the changed date besides affixing notice at the site. Three bidders were present at the time of auction and had tendered draft for earnest money. It was further observed that the Recovery Officer had given opportunity to the petitioner asking him to bring a buyer for ₹ 21 lacs as per his offer within 7 days to show his bonafide but the petitioner failed to comply with the same. Thereafter, on 18.03.2008, i.e. more than a year after the auction, he made an offer for ₹ 18 lacs, which was rightly rejected by the Recovery Officer. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ched by the auction purchaser. Thereafter, the petitioner offered to deposit an additional amount of ₹ 50,000/-. This amount was also matched by counsel for the auction purchaser. The petitioner expressed an intention to further enhance the bid amount at which the counsel for the auction purchaser raised objections that the appeal itself was not maintainable as the petitioner had not made any pre-deposit regarding the same nor made any prayer for seeking waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit. This objection was raised on 10.04.2015. The counsel for the petitioner had prayed for time to move an appropriate application. However, more than three hearings and seven months of the objection being raised still further time was sought to m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al as he had failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 60 of the 2nd Schedule of the Income Tax Act,1961 and that the petitioner had been able to sustain the appeal primarily by misleading the Tribunal by introducing another person, who was not before the Fora below. However, considering that the auction purchaser had agreed to participate in the inter- se bidding and expressed his readiness to pay a sum of ₹ 25 lacs, it was directed that he could not resile from his commitment and he was accordingly directed to deposit the balance amount with the Bank failing which, the Bank would be entitled to recover the amount from him in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily argued that as the learned App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... week and he had moved the second application after more a year of the auction, the Recovery Officer rightly found that the intention of the petitioner was not bona fide and he merely intended to delay the proceedings. The learned Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the attempt by the petitioner to introduce a different buyer (Sh. Shivam Aggarwal), with the offer of ₹ 18 lacs after one year of the auction, and that too after his failure to make good the initial offer of ₹ 21 lacs within the stipulated period had been unfairly entertained. Resultantly, the petitioner even successfully misled the Appellate Tribunal also to urge that he had a better buyer which led to inter se bidding. Thereafter, he introduced the father o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
