The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of Schedule-II to the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly Rule 53 and Rule 63, in the context of challenging the auction and confirmation of sale under Section 30 of the DRT Act, 1993.

S.J. Mukhopadhaya,J

The petitioner (first defendant) has challenged the order dated 13. 2009 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in M.A.Nos.180 to 183 of 2008 and also the consequential public auction conducted on 212. 2006.

2. The main pleas taken by the petitioner are as follows:

.(i) The Recovery Officer or the DRT had no power to reduce the upset price without notice to the defaulter.

.(ii) The auction was conducted without giving notice to the petitioner with regard to the proclamation of sale and that no notice for the subsequent auction was also issued, pursuant to which, the auction-sale has been made.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was the duty cast upon the Recovery Officer to obtain the best possible price while bringing the property on sale, but such procedure was not followed, and the reserve price was earlier fixed at Rs.8,60,000/- and it was arbitrarily reduced to Rs.5,20,000/-without notice to the petitioner and the property had been sold on 212. 2006 to the third respondent for a sum of Rs.5,30,000/-, who was the sole participant on the date of auction, who quoted only a sum of Rs.10,000/- excess to the reduced reserve price.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner referred to Rule 53 of Schedule-II to the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was submitted that before the proclamation of sale of the immovable property, notice should have been given to the defaulter, which was not given to the petitioner and the property has been sold below the reserve price, which was originally shown in the proclamation of sale, dated 13. 2006 at Rs.8,60,000/-.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank, while opposing the prayer, submitted that the Writ Petition has to be dismissed on the following grounds:

.(i) The requisite amount was not pre-deposited by the petitioner while filing application under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, the DRT Act, 1993) and it is only when the Tribunal, for the purpose of passing the interim order, asked to deposit the total amount of auction-sale, the same was deposited.

.(ii) The confirmation of sale cannot be challenged without challenging the sale.

(iii) The order passed by the Recovery Officer, confirming the sale under Rule 63 of the Schedule-II to the Income Tax Act, is merely an administrative order and is not available for challenge under Section 30 of the DRT Act, 1993.

Learned counsel for the Bank relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Shankarlal Vs. Shankarlal", reported in AIR 1965 SC 507, wherein, the Supreme Court noticed the question as to whether the confirmation of sale is merely an order in the course of administration and not a judicial order. The Supreme Court in the said case, held that where the Court confirmed the winding up sale after hearing two view points by two contending parties or interests, and the order confirming sale vitally affected the rights of the parties, the Court acted in a judicial way and the order was not merely procedural but judicial and therefore not inherently incapable of being brought up in appeal.

Learned counsel for the Bank further submitted that the confirmation of sale cannot be treated to be sale, but merely connotes the confirmation of sale already taken. The sale of the immovable property not being under challenge, the confirmation of sale cannot be challenged under Section 30 of the DRT Act, 1993.

Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Bishan Paul Vs. Mothu Ram" reported in AIR 1965 SC 1994, wherein the Supreme Court held that the sale certificate, though issued later, mentions the date of confirmation of sale and the title does not remain in abeyance till the certificate is issued, but based on the confirmation of sale, when the full price is realised, which is merely confirmed by issuance of sale certificate.

Learned counsel for the B