DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS Miscellaneous Appeal is directed as against the order dated 4.2.2005 made in appeal No. 14/2004 in OA No. 241/1998 by DRT, Ernakulam.
(2.) The appellants are the defendants 2 and 4 in the OA and they have filed two applications before the Recovery Officer in IA-30/004 and IA-31/2004 to set aside the sale of Item Nos. 1 to 3 in the Schedule, and both the petitions came to be dismissed. As against the same, they have preferred an appeal before the learned PO in Appeal No. 14/2004, and the same was dismissed on 4.2.2005. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.
I have heard the leaned Advocates for the appellants and the respondents.
The main contention that was raised in the appeal is that the sale was not properly conducted by the Recovery Officer, and the sale was adjourned on several occasions, and no fresh sale proclamation was issued, and therefore, the sale said to have been held, is not proper and valid. It is also stated that the property was not sold for a proper price.
(3.) ON the contrary, the learned Advocate for the respondents would contend that the sale was held as provided under relevant Rules of the II Schedule to the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962, and the sale was adjourned for want of bidders, and taking note of the fact that nobody came forward to bid the property for such a high price, the Recovery Officer issued fresh sale proclamation, reducing the reserve price after due notice to the appellants, and they have not filed any objections for the same. That, thereafter, the properties were brought to sale and only one bidder, viz. Anugraha Charitable Trust, the 2nd respondent herein alone participated in the auction held on 27.1.2004 and it was adjudged as the highest bidder, and the sale was confirmed in its favour. The Sale Certificate has also been issued and further proceedings have been completed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.