9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasonable price for the mortgaged properties. Insofar as the Second Schedule of Income Tax Rules, 1961 are concerned, nothing has been brought to our notice which can be construed as imposing a restriction on the Bank from participating in the bid/auction once the invitation to bid did not result in any response from any interested bidder. Rule 17 of the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re instituted by the appellant-ICICI Bank Limited before the DRT, Chennai claiming a sum of ₹ 57,22,710/- and ₹ 29,31,235.77/- respectively 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. Thereafter, public notice dated 11.02.2004 was issued with regard to the sale of two properties intimati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccept 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 pending and the offer to sell the properties came at the behest of the appellants only. Under these circumstances, instead of offering highest cooperation to the bank, they are just putting spokes in the wheel. This is absolutely unfair and improper. 7. Thereafter the respondents-borrowers filed writ petitions before the Madras High Court chall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the respondents-borrowers must be considered in the light of the fact that the respondents-borrowers had persistently failed either to liquidate the dues or to bring a willing purchaser who could offer a reasonable price for the mortgaged properties. 11. Insofar as the Second Schedule of Income Tax Rules, 1961 are concerned, nothing has been brought to our notice which can be construed as imposing a restriction on the Bank from participating in the bid/auction once the invitation to bid did not result in any response from any interested bidder. Rule 17 of the 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 R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
