Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 935 2008 SLD 935 (2008) 286 ITR 545
Bombay High Court
WRIT PETITION No. 2657 OF 1991, MARCH 6, 2007
DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND, J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
J.D. Mistry, A K. Jasani and S.M. Shah for the Petitioner. Ashok Kotangale, S.R. Chauhan, Jay Chinoy and Kamal Katha for the
Respondent.

Narayan Karwa

v.

Union of India

Law:

Section:

Rule 57 of Part III Schedule II to the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Attachment and sale of immovable property - Deposit purchaser and resale in default There is neither any provision under the Act which permits auction purchaser to deposit entire purchase price beyond period of fifteen days from the date of sale nor is there any provision empowering any authority to grant extension of time There is neither any provision under the Act which permits auction purchaser to deposit the entire purchase price beyond the period of fifteen days from the date of sale nor there is any provision empowering any authority to grant extension of time. Therefore, the TRO cannot accept the balance purchase price beyond the period of fifteen days from the date of sale. The argument that the auction purchaser had requisite money and that he was ready and willing to pay the entire purchase price within the stipulated time cannot be accepted, because, under rule 57, read with the terms of conditions of sale, it is mandatory on the part of auction purchaser to deposit the entire purchase price on or before the fifteenth day from the date of sale. Once it is admitted that the entire purchase price has not been deposited within the stipulated time, then, it must be held that the sale has become invalid and the TRO cannot confirmed the sale. JUDGMENT (Oral Judgment) J.P. Devadhar, J.-The petitioners who claim to be the tenants of a bungalow known as Kamal Kunj, situated at 87-B, Bomanji Petit Road, Mumbai-400 036 ("disputed property" for short), have filed this petition mainly to challenge two orders passed by the Tax Recovery Officer ("the TRO" for short), namely, order dated July 9, 1991 and order dated July 11, 1991. By order dated July 9, 1991, the Tax Recovery Officer has rejected the application made by the petitioner under rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), for setting aside the auction sale of the disputed property held on November 7, 1990. By order dated July 11, 1991, the Tax Recovery Officer has confirmed the auction sale of the disputed property in favour of respondent No, 4. During the pendency of this writ petition, the appeal filed…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492