J U D G M E N T

This original petition has been filed by the appellants in M.A.No.110 of 2010 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai. The said appeal was filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 17-04-2007 in Appeal No.21 of 2006 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam, through which the prayer of the petitioners to set aside the sale of the property of the petitioners consequent to recovery proceedings to recover amounts adjudicated as due in O.A.No.189 of 2001 was rejected by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

2. According to the petitioners, the sale was held contrary to the provisions contained in the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, which applies to proceedings for recovery of amounts adjudicated as due under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. It is submitted that the sale of the property was fixed on 11-10-2006. It is submitted that without notice to the petitioners and the Bank, the sale was adjourned to the next day and was sold to the 2^nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that the sale in favour of the 2^nd respondent was a collusive a also submitted that the Recovery Officer had granted extension of time to the 2^nd respondent to deposit the balance of the sale consideration contrary to the provisions contained in the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act. It is submitted that though the petitioners challenged the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing Appeal No.21 of 2006, that appeal was dismissed by Ext.P2 order finding no irregularity in the proceedings before the Recovery Officer. It is submitted that when the petitioners filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the Appellate Tribunal by Ext.P6 order rejected the appeal relying on the provisions in the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and on the finding that the provisions therefore contemplated extension of time for payment of the balance of the sale consideration.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the

2^nd respondent would submit that the proceedings before the Recovery Officer adjourning the sale from 11-10-2006 to 12-10-2006 had not been challenged by the petitioners before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It is submitted that only the sale held on 12-10-2006 was challenged before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It is submitted that the 2^nd respondent had not sought for any extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration and in fact the balance sale consideration had been deposited within time. It is submitted that the document, which would prove that the deposit was made within time is already on record before this Court along with the counter affidavit of the

2^nd respondent.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent Bank and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, I am of the view that Ext.P6 order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal is liable to be set aside. A reading of the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal will show that the question as to whether the adjournment of sale from 11-10-2006 to 12-10-2006 was valid has not been considered by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. It has held that the Debts Recovery Tribunal had found that the adjournment of sale cannot be questioned and did not decide the matter for itself. Further, when the petitioners had raised a contention that the auction purchaser had not deposited the entire amount payable by him within time, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal appears to have referred to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act to hold that such extension of time was possible in law. The provisions of the SARFAESI Act cannot be applied to the proceedings before the Recovery Officer, where proceedings for recovery are to be conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act. For these re