JUDGMENT - DHARMADHIKARI S.C., J.:—Rule. Respondent No. 1 waives service. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have been served. However, they have not appeared in the courts below as well. Therefore, in our view, petition can be disposed of at this stage. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent.

2. Two questions arise for consideration in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order dated 9th February, 2004 in Misc. Appeal No. 396 of 2003 passed by the learned Chairperson of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short Tribunal).

3. The questions are:

i) Is transfer of an immovable property in contravention of a prohibitionary or injunction order of a Court illegal or void;

ii) Whether and to what extent, the procedure under Rule 11 of Second Schedule to Income Tax Act, 1961 is applicable in execution of a recovery certificate issued under section 19(7) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short RDB Act)

4. To answer these questions, it is necessary to set out the facts. Petitioner No. 1 is a partner of petitioner No. 2, a firm registered under the provisions of Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Respondent No. 1 is a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document