RAMMOHANSINGH BADSHAHSINGH TOMAR Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.8.2017 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.138 of 2009, the order dated 24.12.2008 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I in Miscellaneous Appeal No.50 of 2008 as well as the order dated 10.7.2008 passed by the third respondent Recovery Officer. The petitioner has also prayed that all consequential actions and proceedings taken pursuant to the aforesaid orders also be quashed and set aside. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the third respondent Recovery Officer to confirm the sale of the property in question in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) The facts stated briefly are that the fourth respondent Oriental Bank of Commerce had filed Original Application No.309 of 2000 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") for recovery of its dues. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal allowed the application pursuant to which Recovery Proceedings No.53 of 2006 came to be initiated. In furtherance thereto, the third respondent Recovery Officer fixed an auction sale of Tenement No. A/5, Ambalal Park, CHSL, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (the subject property) on 16.5.2008 wherein the reserve price was fixed at Rs. 31,00,000/- The petitioner along with the other bidders participated in the auction and the petitioner's offer of Rs. 33,90,000/- being the highest bid, he was declared as the successful bidder/purchaser of the subject property for a sum of Rs. 33,90,000/-. In compliance with the auction procedure, the petitioner deposited the entire bid amount within the stipulated time period and the next date for confirmation was fixed on 23.6.2008. In the meanwhile, the fifth respondent Ashok Jasraj Surana filed an application, interalia, stating willingness to purchase the subject property for Rs. 39,00,000/-. In view thereof, the matter was adjourned to 30.6.2008 without confirmation of sale in favour of the petitioner. The Recovery Officer directed that a copy of the application be served to the other parties, including the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to the provisions of section 29 of the RDDB Act to submit that in view thereof, the provisions of the Second Schedule and the Third Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962 apply to the amount of debt due under the RDDB Act. It was submitted that in the facts of the present case, the auction proceedings had been conducted in accordance with the provisions contained in Part-III of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act wherein the petitioner's bid being the highest was accepted and the petitioner was declared to be the successful bidder.