1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.499 of 2008 (Satish Gajananrao Goswami & anr. vs. Deepak Vasantrao Saudagar) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : D.D.Sinha and Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, JJ. DATE : 21.2.2008. Heard Mr. A. Ninawe, Adv. for the Petitioners and Mr.Rohit Joshi, Adv. for the Respondent. In the instant case, the small controversy which is involved is whether the application made by the respondent under Rule 60 of Second Scheduled of the Income Tax Act was maintainable without withdrawing the application under Rule 61 and whether the Tribunal was competent to set aside the auction sale. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. Following facts are not in dispute : That the auction of the property in question had taken place on 19.12.2005. The petitioner (auction purchaser) deposited the entire price of the auction amount on 30.12.2005. The respondent filed joint application under Rules 60 and 61 for setting aside the auction sale on 17.1.2006. However, the cheque which 2 was given by the respondent bounced and therefore, the respondent deposited the entire amount mentioned in the proclamation of sale along with interest thereon @ 15 % including the sum equal to 5 % of the purchase money on 25.1.2006. Considering the Scheme of Rule 60, the application to set aside sale of the immovable property which is sold in auction by the person interested or affected by such sale can be moved within thirty days from the date of sale of such property to the Tax Recovery Officer to set aside sale on depositing the amount mentioned in sub-clause (a) and (b). It is, therefore, evident that the requisite amount is required to be deposited by the affected person within thirty days from the date of sale of the property which is put to auction. In the instant case, in view of the above referred facts, the sale of auction property undoubtedly was completed on 30.12.2005 i.e. the date on which the auction purchaser has deposited the entire amount and therefore, the application moved by the respondent no.1 as well as the requisite amount deposited by the respondent no.1 both were well within the stipulated period mentioned in Rule 60. In the instant case, considering the tenor of the application submitted by the respondent as well as deposit of 15 % amount, sum equal to 5% of the purchase amount has been deposited in cash by the respondent within thirty days and therefore, the Tribunal has by necessary implication treated the composite application moved by the respondent to be the 3 application under Rule 60. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the conclusions arrived at by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai are just and proper and needs no interference. Hence, the same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE ssj