D DURAISRINIVASAN Vs. REGISTRAR DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner (first defendant) has challenged the order dated 17. 3. 2009 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in M. A. Nos. 180 to 183 of 2008 and also the consequential public auction conducted on 21. 12. 2006.

(2.) THE main pleas taken by the petitioner are as follows:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was the duty cast upon the Recovery Officer to obtain the best possible price while bringing the property on sale, but such procedure was not followed, and the reserve price was earlier fixed at Rs. 8,60,000/- and it was arbitrarily reduced to Rs. 5,20,000/- without notice to the petitioner and the property had been sold on 21. 12. 2006 to the third respondent for a sum of Rs. 5,30,000/-, who was the sole participant on the date of auction, who quoted only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- excess to the reduced reserve price. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner referred to Rule 53 of Schedule-II to the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was submitted that before the proclamation of sale of the immovable property, notice should have been given to the defaulter, which was not given to the petitioner and the property has been sold below the reserve price, which was originally shown in the proclamation of sale, dated 15. 3. 2006 at Rs. 8,60,000/ -.