Karnataka High Court
M/S Sujatha Handlooms vs Corporation Bank on 12 April, 2012
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12m DAY OF APRIL
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTIOEAJIT O'
W.P.NO.7955 OF 2013.
BETWEEN
M/S SUJATHA HANDLOOMS
NO.14, 4TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA "
BANGALORE--56O 030 '
REPRESENTED BY ITS '
PROPERTRIX '
SMT.J.P.SUJ1¥.TI{1§;.'A»A'V "
AGED ABOIJ1*'E~:8 '
' " * ._ ...PETITIONER
(BY. SR1.--S..NASARA.JIJ,
AND
1 . CORPORATION. BARNKV A ''
SHANTINAGAR BRANCH
.. ..... ..
A '-13A\I_GALORE -- 560 027.
15.3"" _ I
. 'JHENKATESH
* AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S"/O VJAYARAM
NO~~.35; BRINDAVAN PARADISE
A. ,1_.sT CROSS, LAKKASANDRA
" _ BANGALORE -- 560 030.
3;. THE RECOVERY OFFICER
DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
HUDSON CIRCLE
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE -- 560 001.
4. B.G.ASHOK KUMAR
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER
NO. 11 SHARADI-IA SAMAJ BUILDING
13? FLOOR, IST CROSS
1ST MAIN CHAMRAJPET
BANGALORE - 560 018.
(BY SRLPUTTIGE R RAMESH ADV. IfoR_C/R2' " "
SRI.V.B.RAVI SHANKAR ADV. FOR RI); » '
*=I=>l=** . 'I ' ' =~ V -.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS'I«51LED UNDER ARTI,CLES--w'226 = '
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION-OI«'. INDIA.WiTH AVPRAYER
To DIRECT THE RESPQNDENTS To RESTORE
POSSESSION OF THE~..,.sCHiEDU.Lj4E'*I?ROPERTI'ES AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASHT' ORDER DTD"I25.I.11 PASSED
THE R3 RECOVERY OFFICER AT'ANI\IEx-fA,II'~yt DCP NO.1418
THIS 'IS PRELIMINARY
HEARING in _'B_' GROIJP THIS DAv;THE"COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING: " I
The for the following reliefs:
V_('I) IssueVVW1°itv_Iof"'Irnandamus directing the
A _respOnd._<:n'ts to restore possession of
__ schedule properties and
I'M.._:cO.I1sEquently quash order dated
passed by the 3rd respondent
VReCovery Officer at AnneXure--A. * j??(i)(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of Certiorari or any other writ or order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the Circumstances of the Case. - fl p
(ii) Award costs of the proceedings to th€;'"= petitioner.
(iii) Award ad--interim / compensation of RuPe*es-«5Oi0lV' the petitioner.
(iv) To issue such o_rders*_t directions that 'H_on_fble. A Court_. in the circu1:1_s:tanc_es;_V __to issue orders, in 'justice and eqL1i't:v.':-_ A it it A H A A
2. T fai1'-Iyilargcr background. The petitioner availed "financial assistance from the respoI_1dent--Corporatio1il Bank, which fact is not in dispute,' The _petitioner defaulted in payment of its duels. Bank initiated proceedings to recover O.S.No.1391 /1993. After the Debt Recuove1§v.'T'ribunal was formed, proceedings were it .e,.:t1'a.n__sferred and it was numbered as Original Application 'H62:/1995. The petitioner entered appearance in the " application and had filed written statement. After a prolonged trial for nearly five years, application of the / { Bank was granted. The claim of the petitioner is that fl during the pendency of the application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal he had maintained ".sVev;e1#al applications.
3. Suffice' it to note that the.v'main«Cvontenti1on._ petitioner is that he was not :for matter he did not borrow Both the petitioner at the logger heads on the passed by the Debt finality or not. thelupjvetitioner is before the Debt Chennai, questioning various orders. ' V ' that"'as._._.it' may, the fact remains that the by the Debt Recovery Tribunal was not paid. "H__erice, proceedings were initiated to recover lxthe amount by sale of immovable property. {f(3gnis'equently, the sale proclamation was issued and the property in question was brought to sale. The respondent No.2 was the successful bidder and he purchased the property in auction. Since, possession / J was not delivered the auction purchaser was before this Court by way of a writ petition. The said writ was disposed of directing that the _ shall hand over the possession." is "
Advocate Commissioner was appointed.. Officer and he has handed Vtlflresle circumstances, the petitio1A1p_EpV:,4:r"':p. Court seeking various it _w the present proceedings, lmlaintained an application. llrpeslpondent No.3 who is the Rec.ove1y.'Offi_cer'-..it l
5. __The l Officer is served but unregmesented. _ V " ° ' =.6;vfl'i1e"l.direction, which is sought, is in respect of certain documents, which are in the possession of ''._respondent N03.
Be that as it may, I am of the view that the "question of entertaining the said application for a direction for the present is of no consequence. Z'
8. Indeed, it is common ground that the proceedings relating to the auction are governed._:'l'o,y Schedule 2 of the Income Tax Act, which . Procedure for Recovery of Tax.
9. One of the main contentioniofid that an Advocate Commissioiier» mbeen appointed to hand auction purchaser inasmuch as is only the recovery . icani. " powers to his subordinate the possession to the E13. _ oi property is regulated by Schedule' of tax under the Income Tax Act, Indeed: all mechanism is provided to the edefaulteifi theulncome Tax Act in Schedule 2 to set immovable property. Apparently, the V _ petitioner is 'required to have recourse to the provision envisaged in Schedule 2 to Rules 59 & 60 of the R'"ei1es;A-- The petitioner is not in a position to state clearly ashto whether he has made any application under Rule 3 60 for setting aside the sale. %l/
10. It is no doubt true that a contention is sought to be raised before me by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that questioning . petitioner had filed another writ petition R"
allowed the same to be dismissed ;f_or:'default"
compliance of office object_ion lithe = R' petiton on the same causeVppofwaction, the same order is barred I 'am of the View that since the '~n%ot'lldisposed of on merits probably as resjudicata. But howe\rer',~vgvllbefithatjlelasll the disposal of the earlierilvvritlp disposal of the present petition come in the Way of the n__1akin'g«application to set aside the sale of tlie *-property as contemplated under to Rule 2 of the Rules. It is also open for the l'..,petitior1_e1': to urge before the Recovery Officer that it was lllfvvithin his powers to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to deliver possession having regard to the relevant rules of the Income Tax Rules. Indeed, the question of restoring possession in the circumstances / does not arise unless'the petitioner has satisfied the a requirement of Rule 60of the Rules.
11. Be that as it may, I am of the best left to the Recovery Office-'r'AA'to"d_e'c_ide question.
12. Insofar as and compensation of it is best required to be in a petition under I of India.
to avail the remedy, which Rules, petitions stand disposed of.
_ Insofar«._. as the application for direction is "cori"cerrie:d,_ itffv;s open for the petitioner to make an M if ._tlie said "information. identicallapplication before the Recovery Officer seeking sd/-
JUDGE SS