In Brief
A bank conducted an auction of properties owned by judgment debtors. The successful bidders deposited the purchase amount, but the debtors subsequently filed an application under Rule 60 of the Income Tax Act to set aside the auction sale by depositing the amount specified in the sale proclamation. Although there was a technical shortfall due to the recovery officer's inaccuracy in calculating the exact interest due, the debtors deposited the shortfall amount promptly upon being informed. The High Court quashed the DRAT's order setting aside the sale, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that Rule 60 provides a valuable last resort for judgment debtors and substantial compliance had been achieved. The shortfall resulted from the recovery officer's mistake, not the debtors' fault, and thus should not defeat their right to save their property.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.