Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Digital Accelerator Limited vs The Recovery Officer on 17 October, 2025

                                                                                        W.P.No.38620 of 2025

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED:          17.10.2025

                                                            CORAM :

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,
                                                   CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                        AND
                                      THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

                                                W.P.No.38620 of 2025
                                             and W.M.P.No.43182 of 2025

                     Digital Accelerator Limited,
                     (Formerly Marg Realities Limited),
                     Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
                     R.B.Srinivasan,
                     57/2B, Sai Subodhaya Apartments,
                     East Coast Road, Thiruvanmiyur,
                     Chennai 600 041.

                                                                                         Petitioner

                                                                 Vs

                     1.The Recovery Officer
                       Debts Recovery Tribunal-III,
                       6th Floor, Additional Office Building,
                       Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road,
                       Nungambakam,
                       Chennai 600 006.

                     2.ICICI Bank Limited
                       Rep. by its Chief Manager,
                       No.1, Canatoph Road,
                       Teynampet,
                       Chennai 600 018.


                     ______________
                     Page 1 of 6




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis               ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:42 am )
                                                                                              W.P.No.38620 of 2025

                     3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
                       (BPU).
                       Initiating Officer, Benami Prohibition Unit,
                       Room No.2, Ground Floor,
                       Investigation Building,
                       46, M.G. Road, Nungambakam,
                       Chennai 600 034.

                                                                                               Respondents

                     PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

                     seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the

                     records relating to the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 passed by

                     the 1st respondent in M.A.Diary No.32 of 2025 in T.R.C.No.50 of 2022

                     and quash the same              and consequently                direct the 1st respondent to

                     afford an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth their case                           on

                     merits in the said Applications and thereafter pass orders on merits in

                     the said Applications.


                                  For Petitioner:                Mr.G.Rajkumar
                                                                 for Mr.S.Vignesh


                                  For Respondents:               Mr.R.Imayavaramban
                                                                 for M/s.Ramalingam and
                                                                 Associates
                                                                 for respondent No.2

                                                                 Ms.M.Sheela
                                                                 Sr. Standing Counsel
                                                                 and


                     ______________
                     Page 2 of 6




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                     ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:42 am )
                                                                                            W.P.No.38620 of 2025



                                                               Mr.H.Siddarth
                                                               Jr. Standing Counsel
                                                               for respondent No.3



                                                           ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Challenge to the order of the Recovery Officer is assailed mainly on the ground that the Recovery Officer has not examined the merits of the objection raised by the petitioner on 12.09.2025, even though auction was scheduled on 15.09.2025 and, therefore, in these exceptional circumstances, even though there exists a remedy of appeal against the order impugned, the petitioner approached this Court. He further submits that, as objection was made before sale, the same ought to have been decided and the proceedings ought not to have been delayed till the date of sale, as in the matter of challenge to the sale, onerous condition of pre-

deposit will come in the way, in view of provisions contained in Rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961.

______________ Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:42 am ) W.P.No.38620 of 2025

3. We find that even though sale notice was issued on 06.08.2025, the objection, even according to the petitioner, was submitted on 12.09.2025 i.e., three days before the auction sale.

Though it is submitted that the petitioner filed a writ petition and after the liberty was granted it had approached the Recovery Officer, we fail to understand why the petitioner had not taken remedy immediately after the sale notice was issued.

4. Be that as it may, taking into consideration that the petitioner has various remedies under the law either to challenge the order passed by the Recovery Officer or to seek setting aside the sale by applying under Rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act and taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner, we are not inclined to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction and leave the petitioner to work out its remedy against the order of the Recovery Officer as is available under the law.

______________ Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:42 am ) W.P.No.38620 of 2025

5. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.





                        (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ)     (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
                                                     17.10.2025
                     Index            : Yes/No
                     Neutral Citation : Yes/No
                     bbr

                     To:

                     1.The Recovery Officer
                       Debts Recovery Tribunal-III,

6th Floor, Additional Office Building, Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road, Nungambakam, Chennai 600 006.

2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (BPU).

Initiating Officer, Benami Prohibition Unit, Room No.2, Ground Floor, Investigation Building, 46, M.G. Road, Nungambakam, Chennai 600 034.

______________ Page 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:42 am ) W.P.No.38620 of 2025 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

bbr W.P.No.38620 of 2025 17.10.2025 ______________ Page 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 11:40:42 am )