Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (6) TMI 381

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cted flats on the property and transferred the same to various third parties, though it is stated that some flats are yet to be sold. At the same-time, there is no proof that notice dated 30.11.2012 was served by the appellant on the respondent. As per the appellant, after adjusting the amount due and payable by the respondent, a sum of Rs.22,53,004/- (rupees twenty two lakhs fifty three thousand and four only), is due and payable and has been with them since 21.03.2013. By letter dated 21.03.2013, the appellant had sent a cheque of the aforesaid balance amount to the respondent, which was not accepted - we cannot be oblivious to the fact that the respondent was entirely aware of the auction process in terms of the notice dated 30.11.2012. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y one paisa only) was due and payable. One-time settlement offer did not materialise due to the respondent s failure to pay. On 22.03.2006 notice in re the property was issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 For short, SARFAESI Act . By then, the outstanding amount had increased to Rs.6,23,809/- (rupees six lakhs twenty three thousand eight hundred nine only). On 09.07.2009, upon the respondent s failure to pay, Cooperative Bank took symbolic possession of the property. On 22.07.2009, possession notice was published in the newspaper, namely, Rashtriya Sahara. The appellant approached the Court of District Magistrate/Collector, at Lucknow by filin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... only). However, the forced sale value of the property was fixed at Rs.22,28,000/- (rupees twenty two lakhs twenty eight thousand only). On 30.11.2012, the appellant states that they had sent an auction notice to the respondent, indicating that an auction of the property was scheduled to be held on 31.12.2012. On 30.11.2012 itself, auction sale notice was published in two newspapers. On 14.12.2012, the respondent challenged the auction sale by filing a writ petition Writ Petition No. 10530 (M/B)/2012 before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2012 as not maintainable. At this stage, we must notice, that the respondent disputes service of notice dated 30.11.201 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndred nine only) and had sent a cheque for the amount. The appellant returned the cheque and the respondent was informed that the total amount due and payable was Rs.19,30,995/- (rupees nineteen lakhs thirty thousand nine hundred ninety five only). Subsequently, the appellant handed over possession of the property to the auction purchaser, and a sale deed was executed in his favour on 21.03.2013. The auction purchaser had constructed flats on the property, which have been sold and transferred to third parties. As noticed above, the respondent had challenged the service of auction notice dated 30.11.2012, which plea has been accepted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Lucknow, by quashing the auction vide judgment and order dated 30.10.2017. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... atory. To us, it does appear that there is lapse on the part of the appellant, as they did not maintain proper records of the service of notice dated 30.11.2012. Parallelly, we cannot be oblivious to the fact that the respondent was entirely aware of the auction process in terms of the notice dated 30.11.2012. We are also conscious that the auction purchaser had constructed flats, which had been sold to various third parties. In view of the aforesaid facts and exercising our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we direct that the appellant Cooperative Bank will pay an amount of Rs.54,00,000/- The appellant will be entitled to deduct Tax At Source on this amount and will furnish certificate to this effect to the respondent. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates