https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263726 In recovery proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 executed through the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, a challenge to a confirmed auction sale was rejected because the petitioners had notice of the debt, recovery steps and sale proclamations, and the property was mortgaged by deposit of title deeds. The Court held that Rule 68-B did not apply to such recoveries and that Rule 61 required proof of non-service, material irregularity and substantial injury, with deposit of the recoverable amount by the defaulter where required. As no deposit was made, no substantial injury was shown, and the writ remedy was pursued belatedly, interference under Article 226 was declined. en-us Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Sep 2015 13:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263726 In recovery proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 executed through the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, a challenge to a confirmed auction sale was rejected because the petitioners had notice of the debt, recovery steps and sale proclamations, and the property was mortgaged by deposit of title deeds. The Court held that Rule 68-B did not apply to such recoveries and that Rule 61 required proof of non-service, material irregularity and substantial injury, with deposit of the recoverable amount by the defaulter where required. As no deposit was made, no substantial injury was shown, and the writ remedy was pursued belatedly, interference under Article 226 was declined. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263726