THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
K. Kutaguptan – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank, Rep. By Its Manager – Respondent
1. Petitioner being the guarantor for a loan, his property was mortgaged to the creditor bank. That item, which is A schedule to the recovery certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in terms of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, for short, the "RDB Act", is sold in enforcement of that certificate. He challenges that sale contending that the final order in the original application was issued by the Tribunal on 27.2.2004 and a period of three years and seven months from the end of the financial year in which that order was issued, had elapsed before the sale was held on 21.11.2007 and therefore, the said sale is void being violative of Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, for short, the "IT Act". The argument on his behalf is that Rule 68B of the Second Schedule stipulates an outer time limit of three years, for the sale, from the end of the financial year in which the order giving rise to the demand became final in terms of the provisions of Chapter XX of the IT Act or the attachment has become conclusive under the provisions of Section 245-I of the IT Act.
2. It is argued on behalf of the creditor ban
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.