Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.29 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Mr. A.K. Jain vs Canara Bank And Ors. on 14 September, 2007
A Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the
case of A.K.Jain Vs. Canara Bank and others
(MANU/DE/8620/2007) has held that the principle laid down in
Divya's case is applicable to an auction by the Recovery Officer
attached to DRT. It has been observed that when a properly mortgaged
with the bank is sold by the Recovery Officer on the basis of the orders
passed in the O.A., he (Recovery Officer) is the trustee of the property,
who is selling the same for the benefit of the mortgaged bank as well as
the workers.
Fcs Software Solutions Ltd vs La Medical Devices Ltd. & Ors on 9 July, 2008
The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in FCS Software
Solutions Ltd. Vs. LA Medical Devices [2008(10) SCALE page 7] is
also worth mentioning, wherein the principle laid down in Divya's case
has been reiterated that even confirmed sale can be set aside in
appropriate case and that it is the duty of the court to see that the
suggestion of irregularity or fraud. In that case, confirmed sale in
favour of the appellant was set aside which met the approval of the
Supreme Court.
Lica (P.) Ltd. (No. 1) vs Official Liquidator And Anr. on 4 January, 1993
8. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the respective
contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through
the record including the record of the recovery proceedings which has
been summoned. What has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of LICA (P) Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator and another, [(1996)
Comp. Case 788 (SC)] may pertinently be taken note of that the
purpose of an open auction is to get the most remunerative price and it
is the duty of the court to keep openness of the auction so that the
intending bidders would be free to participate and offer higher value if
that part is cut down or closed, the possibility of fraud or to secure
inadequate price of under-bidding would loom large.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sri Mohan Wahi vs Commissioner, Income-Tax, Varanasi & ... on 30 March, 2001
9. It should also be pointed out that an auction purchaser does not
have an indefeasible right for the confirmation of sale in the eventuality
of non-filing of objections under Rule 60 or 61 of the Second Schedule
to the Income-tax Act. The confirmation of sale is not inevitable in
each and every case. In suitable situation, sale may be refused to be
confirmed and even on confirmation, sale may be set aside. The
auction purchaser cannot insist that the sale should invariably be
confirmed after expiry of statutory period of 30 days under Rule 63(1)
of the Second Schedule of the Income-tax Act. Reference may
profitably be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mohan Wahi Vs. Commissioner, Income Tax, Varanasi and others
[(2001) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES 362].
Divya Manufacturing Co.,Tirupati Wool ... vs Union Bank Of India , The Official ... on 11 July, 2000
The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in FCS Software
Solutions Ltd. Vs. LA Medical Devices [2008(10) SCALE page 7] is
also worth mentioning, wherein the principle laid down in Divya's case
has been reiterated that even confirmed sale can be set aside in
appropriate case and that it is the duty of the court to see that the
suggestion of irregularity or fraud. In that case, confirmed sale in
favour of the appellant was set aside which met the approval of the
Supreme Court.
1