TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court upholds Regulation 60 in Debt Recovery Tribunals case, sets aside sale proclamation, clarifies Section 29.</h1> <h3>SAMIR K. SHAH & ANR. Versus U.O.I. & ORS.</h3> SAMIR K. SHAH & ANR. Versus U.O.I. & ORS. - 2005 AIR 4111, 2005 (10) SCC 134, 2004 (7) SCALE 491 Issues:1. Challenge to Regulation 60 of the Debt Recovery Tribunals Regulations.2. Challenge to the valuation and proclamation of sale of two plots.3. Interpretation of Section 29 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.4. Sale of the property and reserve price determination.5. Clarification on the sale proclamation and access road concerns.1. Challenge to Regulation 60 of the Debt Recovery Tribunals Regulations:The appellant challenged Regulation 60 of the Debt Recovery Tribunals Regulations, contending it conflicted with Section 29 of the Act and Rules 52 and 53 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court rejected the challenge, emphasizing that Regulation 60 did not violate the rules. The rules did not mandate an opportunity for the debtor to be heard before valuation and reserve price fixation, only requiring notice for the sale proclamation. The appellant's reliance on a previous court decision was deemed inapplicable, as there was no similar provision in the relevant rules.2. Challenge to the valuation and proclamation of sale of two plots:The appellant disputed the valuation and proclamation of sale of two plots, arguing that the valuation was done without hearing them and without considering their valuation report. The High Court set aside the proclamation of sale for one plot and directed a fresh proclamation with a revised reserve price. The matter was adjourned for the bank to assess the feasibility of selling a portion of the plot to meet its claim, as suggested by the appellant.3. Interpretation of Section 29 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993:Section 29 of the Act was interpreted to apply the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to debt recovery proceedings with necessary modifications. The court clarified that Regulation 60 did not contravene Section 29, as it did not require the debtor to be heard before valuation and reserve price determination.4. Sale of the property and reserve price determination:The court addressed the necessity of selling a portion of one plot to meet the bank's claim, considering the disparity between the plot's value and the claim amount. The valuation officer was directed to assess whether selling a portion of the plot was feasible. Additionally, concerns regarding the approach road cutting through one plot and affecting its value were raised, prompting further evaluation by the valuation officer.5. Clarification on the sale proclamation and access road concerns:The court examined the clarification regarding the sale proclamation and access road concerns raised by the appellant. The valuation officer was tasked with investigating if the approach road delineated in the valuation report affected the value of the plot unnecessarily. The court emphasized the importance of independent access to the plot being sold and directed a thorough review of the access road issue.The judgment delves into the legal intricacies of debt recovery regulations, valuation procedures, and the interpretation of relevant statutes to ensure a fair and just resolution in the matter at hand.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
