Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3/auction purchasers stated that the petitioner never deposited the sum of Rs.3,39,50,000/- with the Recovery Officer as contended. In fact, the petitioner had encashed the said sum on the pretext of having lost the Demand Draft. He submitted that once no deposit was actually made, the embargo under Rule 60 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would bar the petitioner agitating the issue any further. He invited attention of this Court to the reply/counter affidavit of the respondent no.4/Bank, specifically to paras (xx) and (xxi) in support of the above contentions on facts. It was submitted that infact, it is the petitioner who played fraud with the DRT by obtaining a stay order in the garb of depositing a Demand Draft with the Recovery Officer which was already encashed by the petitioner.

29. That apart, the affidavit of the respondent no.4/bank, evidences the fact that the petitioner claimed to have made a deposit of Rs.3,39,50,000/- by way of a Demand Draft dated 22nd June, 2018. This was, however subsequently reported lost and encashed by the petitioner and was used to mislead the Presiding Officer, DRT for obtaining a stay order. This too, propels this Court to reach an opinion that the petitioner was not a serious bidder or a bona fide intending purchaser.