Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)M/S Hotel Paras Garden, Through Its ... vs Central Bank Of India, Balapur Branch, ... on 10 June, 2015
6.4 The legislative intent of Rule 60 has been dealt with and
considered in detail by the Bombay High Court in the case of Hotel
Paras Garden, Balapur & Anr. (supra). In the aforesaid case, it is
observed that the legislative intent of Rule 60 is to give the defaulter as
much latitude as possible till the end and he can, under Rule 60, without
assigning any cause but after depositing the sum therein mentioned as
mentioned in the sale proclamation within the stipulated time, avoid the
auction and protect his property. Thus, the right which is available to the
judgment debtor under Rule 60 is a most valuable right available and the
same shall not be permitted to be affected on the technical ground
and/or bona fide mistake for which he cannot be said to be at fault.
6.5 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and
2 that according to the Bank, a sum of Rs.4.63 lakhs was the balance
amount due and payable against which even subsequently the borrower
has deposited Rs. 3,57,647/- and therefore, still there is a shortfall is
concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. At this stage, it is required
to be noted that on deposit of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,5,7647/-,
(i.e., Rs.2,80,000/- + Rs.77,647/-) as on 13.02.2007, the Recovery
Officer directed the Bank to hand over the original documents pertaining
to the impugned properties and file compliance affidavit and thereafter
the Bank was allowed to appropriate the decretal amount deposited by
the judgment debtor and that on 19.02.2007 itself, the Bank complied
22
with the order passed by the Recovery Officer dated 15.02.2007 and
handed back to the judgment debtor the documents pertaining to the
properties in question and requested to release the amount deposited,
which came to be allowed by the Recovery Officer. At that time, no
dispute was raised by the Bank that any further amount was due and
payable. The Bank was satisfied with the deposit of the amount by the
judgment debtor.
Commnr. Of Central Excise, New Delhi vs M/S. Hari Chand Shri Gopal & Ors on 18 November, 2010
Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of
Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi Vs. Hari Chand Shri
Gopal and Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 236 and Excise Commissioner & Ors.
Vs. Ajith Kumar and Anr., (2008) 5 SCC 495.
Gajadhar Prasad & Ors vs Babu Bhakta Ratan & Ors on 14 August, 1973
3.5 It is contended that in the present case, the Recovery Officer ought
to have specifically mentioned the exact amount due and payable in the
sale proclamation. That it was the Recovery Officer, who was required
10
to determine the entire amount alongwith the interest, which was due till
the date of issuance of the proclamation. It is submitted that the
Recovery Officer would be in a better position to know the actual value
of the property and to indicate the correct upset price.
3.6 It is urged that it is the duty of the Recovery officer to apply his
mind for determining all the necessary particulars that should be inserted
in the proclamation of sale. Reliance is placed on the decision of this
Court in the case of Gajadhar Prasad Vs. Babu Bhakta Ratan, (1973)
2 SCC 629.
Section 25 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 300A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Excise Commissioner & Ors vs Ajith Kumar & Anr on 22 April, 2008
Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of
Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi Vs. Hari Chand Shri
Gopal and Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 236 and Excise Commissioner & Ors.
Vs. Ajith Kumar and Anr., (2008) 5 SCC 495.
1