AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur and the order dated 9th January, 2015
passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi.
It is a case where a property was put for auction by the Recovery Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur. An advertisement for it was
issued vide Annexure-2 dated 30th November, 2012. The property was sold on ""as is where is basis"" & what ever there is basis"". An indication
was given about litigation by the tenant though TI application was decided. The petitioner participated in the bid and remained highest bidder. He
deposited 10% of the amount but failed to deposit the remaining amount. It was precisely on the ground that tenant approached higher court and
got an interim order.
The petitioner made an application to the Recovery Officer to withdraw himself from the sale. The Recovery Officer cancelled the sale. The
order aforesaid was challenged by the respondent-Bank before the Presiding Officer. It was allowed mainly on the ground that Recovery Officer
had no authority to cancel the sale. The order was passed in violation of Rule 62 of Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961. An appeal
was preferred by the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (""DRAT""), Delhi. It has also been dismissed.
Learned counsel for petitioner could not show power of the Recovery Officer to cancel the sale on the ground urged by the petitioner. It is
moreso when in the advertisement, a clear indication about litigation by the tenant was given and, thereby, sale was ""as is where is basis & what
ever there is basis"". The petitioner participated in the sale after knowing the aforesaid. In any case, the Recovery Officer had no jurisdiction to
cancel the sale on the ground taken therein thus rightly interfered by the Presiding Officer and the order was upheld by the DRAT, Delhi.
I do not find any reason to cause interference in the impugned orders. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.