2311wp4338.09.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4338 OF 2009 (RAJU TEOMAL BHAWNANI VS. P. O., D. R. T., NAGPUR & 3 OTHERS) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders CORAM: D. D. SINHA & F. M. REIS, JJ. DATED : 23rd NOVEMBER, 2009. Heard Mr. P. S. Khubalkar, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. H. Agrawal, Counsel for respondent No. 2 and Ms Y. Ramani, Counsel for respondent No. 3. The writ petition is directed against order dated 21/8/2009 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal whereby the application filed by auction purchaser – respondent No. 2 is disposed of. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Recovery Officer has not followed the procedure stipulated under Sections 57 and 58 of the Income Tax Act which requires the auction purchaser to deposit 25% of the sale consideration immediately and balance sale consideration within 15 days from the date of auction sale and on failure to do so, the sale shall stand cancelled. It is contended that in the instant case, the auction purchaser failed to do so, however, in stead of cancelling the sale, time was extended to deposit the sale 2311wp4338.09.odt 2/2 amount, and therefore, auction is bad in law as well as the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. Counsel for the other side do not agree with the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is contended that the respondents have relied on the provisions of Section 29 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel. The petitioner is borrower/defaulter. We have asked the petitioner whether he is ready and willing to deposit some amount in this Court which is outstanding. However, the petitioner has shown total inability to deposit any amount which is due and payable to the respondent-Bank. In that view of the matter, there is no equity in favour of the petitioner. Hence, in the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, we do not propose to show any indulgence in the present writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE wwl