ARUN KUMAR JHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner states that the entire proceeding initiated by the Debt Recovery Officer is bad on account of non-observance of Section 28(2) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 as well as Rule 55 of Income Tax Rules mentioned in Schedule-II.

(3.) Learned counsel submits that it would appear from the order dated 26.12.2006 of the Recovery Officer that the property in question was valued at Rs. 15,77,000/-. He submits that it would appear from the auction notice that the property in question was valued at Rs. 25,00,000/-. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid property was sold on 17.12.2008 for a value of Rs. 2,04,994/- only. He, thus, states that apart from other points the property worth about Rs. 16/- lacs has been sold away for Rs. 2,04,994/- only, which itself is a matter to ponder.