LAWS(RAJ)-2010-1-14

GEETA DEVI KHUNTETA Vs. RECOVERY OFFICER

Decided On January 20, 2010
GEETA DEVI KHUNTETA Appellant
V/S
RECOVERY OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31-1-2008 by which the application of the petitioner under Rule 60 of the Procedure for Recovery of Tax contained in Second Schedule, Appendix-3 of the Income-tax Act was rejected.

(2.) Shri N. K. Maloo, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application was rejected by the Debt Recovery Tribunal holding that provisions of Section-5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to such an application and the application has been moved with delay. Learned Counsel submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that provisions of Section-5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable. He relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. T.P. Kunhaliumma, 1976 4 SCC 634 wherein with reference to Article 137 of the Limitation Act, it was held that in dealing with applications under Section 16 of the Telegraphs Act, 1885 for compensation, the District Judge acts as a civil Court and hence Article 137 applies. Learned Counsel also relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Philomina Jose v. Federal Bank Ltd., 2006 2 SCC 608 and argued that right of redemption under Order 34, Rule 5(1) subsists until there is final determination on whether or not to set aside the sale under Order 34, either by way of appeal or revision.

(3.) In this case, earlier than filing the application under Section 60, an application under Rule 61 was filed by the petitioner alleging that the property was sold undervalued and even though the market value of the property was much higher, but the amount that was received by sale through auction was on lower side. Such an application was earlier rejected by the Debt Recovery Tribunal vide order dated 28-2-2003. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court against the said order and on being pointedly asked about the fate of same, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Special Leave to Petition against the said order was dismissed.