 Since the resource person Mr. E. O. Prakash, the senior advocate and one of the, I can say the brain child behind the study circle says that we should keep it short and simple, like in all communication it said, just keep it short and simple. So the introduction is very short and ask sir to take things forward and after the session people can enjoy the Sunday. Over to you sir. Thank you Mr. E. O. Prakash. Thanks for all the participants for having joined on a Sunday evening. It's always been pleasure participating in the webinar of Beyond Law CLC, which had reached out to the pan India audience as regarding various topics on law. For today's session Mr. Vikas had reached out to me long back and he was asking me why can't we have some session on a particular topic concerning the recovery laws, the tax laws as well as the civil procedure code. And we arrived at this topic of auction sale, because most important topic or most important subject which is being often dealt with is on the auction. Now when we speak about auction sale, we effectively mean the sale by way of a force or a sale in the context of distress sale being brought about of properties either be movables or immovable. On account of certain statutory provisions or contractual obligations resulting in court orders and further under the statutes being carried forward. For today's topic what I thought was that we will have an outside view or an outer view as to how this is being dealt with in different context. Firstly, we all know the auction sale had been there under the civil procedure code, be it the cases which for recovery of money or be it the cases where enforcement of mortgage or be it the cases even in to some extent in partition suits and so forth and so on. So one of the earliest statutes which had provided for sale of properties is under the civil procedure code. We will have a clear outlook as to how CPC dealt with it. Then we can also look into the specific statutes under the taxation laws be it income tax act or the earlier VAT act or the customs or central excise which now gets into a single fold of GST enactment. And then we can look at recovery enactments probably which starts with the State Financial Corporation Act then you had the debt recovery act then you have the surface act. Now these have been a broad outline as to what is going to be for today's unfolding before you. Now this will also be in the context as to what kind of procedure or ingredients which has been set for when we speak about auction sale under the CPC or under the taxation laws or under the recovery laws. Broadly the criteria's would be as to how the sale can be brought about. Now within that what are all the criteria's we can have a discussion on it. Then look at how the process unfolds with the completion of the sale as a concluded sale or a confirmed sale. Then incidentally this will bring about two more things which we have to look at is on the conclusion of the sale. What are the rights with the auction purchaser gets because most of the matters we have issues on possession of the property being vested with the auction purchaser without any concern of encumbrance. And also once we come into surface act we have to make the most challenging aspect of physical possession being delivered because this is now getting into a lot of mitigations. So this will be one aspect of how the auction purchasers rights are to be dealt with. Then incidentally if there are some challenges arising out of it where do the auction purchasers stand. So this will be one other aspect which we look at. When I have said all these things what essentially will be that is there a jurisprudence which has evolved on the setting aside of the sale or challenge to an auction sale. So as lawyers what will be more interesting for us is to see how the provisions unfold for challenging an auction sale or if on a conclusion setting aside the auction sale. So this will be the outline of today's session. One aspect is that statutes which we are looking at namely civil procedure code, the taxing statutes which present in the present context would be income tax act and GST act. And on the recovery laws a small tracing from state financial corporation act then to the debt recovery tribunal act and then to the surface act. Now within these statutes or within these parameters what we are looking at is as to what are all the essential ingredients when we speak about an auction sale, point number one. Then point number two is that in a conclusion of the auction sale what the statutes provide for. Then we also look at what rights flow to the auction purchaser and finally as to what are all the mechanisms for challenging the auction or seeking for setting aside an auction sale. So this will be an outline. Now let us first at the first instance take the case of civil procedure code. Now when we speak about civil procedure code in the context of auction sale what are all the instances when an auction sale is required under the civil procedure code. First would be the mortgage suits where there is a foreclosure of mortgage by the creditor and in that he gets a decree for recovery of the money and in absence of the payment seeking for a final decree which ultimately results in the sale of the mortgage property. This has been one of the foremost instances. Now in addition to that in all money recovery suits where civil suits are filed for recovery of money one of the modes of execution because an auction sale may not be the only mode of execution. The execution is by many means which the code provides for one of the modes of execution for the recovery of a decreed debt is the auction sale of properties of the debt tab. So this is at the second instance. Then as I said even in cases of partition suits there are provisions for sale of the property. If a partition is ordered and ultimately it ends in a position of not divisible then you go for a sale of the property. Now in addition to that there may be instances where suits are brought about as regarding settlement of accounts as regarding administrative suits. So many other things where two instances the sale of properties come into consideration. One instance may be at the first instance when the suit is pending and a requirement arises for a receiver to be appointed to manage the property. In the sense that the parties who are adversarial in the proceedings both of them doesn't take care of the property or both of them are not in the administration or control of the property. So therefore an application is brought before the code for appointment of receiver and receiver takes charge. So it will be an instance where the receiver has to maintain the property and he finds that it may be difficult or there is some requirement that the property has to be sold. So auction sale happens. Now that apart in all other of these suits also may be the administration suits, may a suits on accounts or may a suit of dissolution of partnership firms so forth. This will also result in a situation of where there is a requirement of sale. So this is the background as far as the auction sales which come about under the Civil Procedure Code. Now when we say about auction sale at the first instance I pointed out that it is effectively a forced sale because sale in the context of a owner selling the property be it movable or movable. We are fully aware as to the provisions which are governing that it is based on the right which I have a right to sell the property. Now these are all instances where the owner doesn't come up for sale. It is at the instance of an adversarial party in a civil suit or at the instance of a creditor bringing about an action. Therefore it becomes a sale in the context of a distressed situation, a sale in the context of a third party stepping in to bring the property for sale. So this is broadly a principle which we have to look about. Now coming back to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. How does Civil Procedure Code provide for the sale of the property? This is effectively what I have to point out is only in the execution proceedings which you are fully aware which arises under Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code. Now under Order 21 specific rule provides for bringing a property for sale. It also provides to seek for attachment and sale of a property. Instances where the property is not mortgaged and it is a non-mortgage property. What is primarily required is that the property has to be first attached by the executing code then it is being brought about for sale. Now once an attachment happens, what is the process under the Civil Procedure Code for this auction sale? Process if you look at provisions start from Rule 66 onwards. You have n number of provisions under Order 21 Rule 66 onwards which in fact travels up to Rule 99 where you will find the foremost requirement is that identification of the property. Suppose if you are filing an exhibition petition seeking for an auction sale of the property, there is a requirement of a proper description of the property. In addition to that, also disclose as to whether any pre-existing encumbrances are there. Suppose I am coming forward with the execution of a money decree. I am identifying that there is an property, more property owned by the debtor. So I seek before the court that I need to have for an attachment and sale of this property. I have to make a search and then disclose to the court that in the search I find that there is a registered mortgage or there is a charge created in fare of some party or there is an attachment by some public authority. So whatever be the encumbrance that has to be disclosed. So at the first instance, an identity of the property and the known disclosures as to encumbrances which are there as to be brought about before the court. Likewise, if it is a case of mobile properties, substantially this discussion is going to be on immobile properties because mobile properties you have very little scope. On the context that if it is an attachment of mobile property, the property possession gets transferred to the court or the court officer or an auctioner who is involved in the process. So in all cases of sale of mobile property, the first foremost requirement is that the physical possession of the mobile gets into the person. Who seeks to sell it. So there itself you will have a position of having dispossessed the person. So whatever happens thereafter is only on two contexts. Either it is on the economical context as to attachment, the sale can go ahead or if the sale can be set aside or the other context would be on the valuation. So in mobile it is very, very little scope. So substantially what I am putting across or what I am trying to explain to you is on the immobile properties. Now in an execution petition, as I said the identity and encumbrances disclose. Now in terms of the provisions of the code, what is the first conduct or first criteria with the execution code gets into before sale of the property. It is called as the proclamation of sale. The court has to draw upon a proclamation of sale. Now in this process of arriving at a proclamation of sale, there is a participation which is provided under the code of civil procedure. In the sense if the judgment debtor is put on notice and he is before the court, he has a right to place his own materials for arriving at the proclamation of sale. Likewise, if the creditor comes up with materials to enable the court to come out with the proclamation of sale, the debtor will also have a sale as to certain objections which he can raise which will be essentially on the valuation. Now what the proclamation of sale means? The proclamation of sale under the code is essentially a document which puts across to the public at large or the potential auction purchasers or the prospective purchasers who are looking at purchasing the property as to the material details of the property. So therefore a proclamation of sale if you look at Rule 66, it gives as sub-rules as to what are all the requirements which are there, which have to be provided. Namely the description of property, then you may have to say the extent, if it is land, if it is also a building, an extent and some description of the building. Then you may have to say about the known encumbrances on that property. Then you may have to say what is the upset price at which the property is sought to be sold. So this essentially depends on the valuation. Then you may have to give a time limit by which any bids has to be produced or if there is a public open auction to be conducted, the date and time on which the auction is to be held and the place. Invariably under the code of civil procedure, these auctions were conducted at the property because the code does not specify as to any other means. So therefore it would be conducted at the property itself and in some instances these auctions are conducted by auction houses. They are called normally the registered auctioners. So code gets the aid of these registered auctioners to go about this process of selling the property. Now as I said, sale proclamation will set out all these things and in the sale proclamation, there is a scope of participation of the debt tar in terms of providing certain materials. For example, he may come about and say that this is the valuation according to me or there are these encumbrances which are there. For example, if there is a charge or attachment, it may still travel with the property even after auction because this is a non mortgage property which the code brings about by an attachment and consequent to that a sale is being affected. So all these things he may provide or he may dispute on the valuation. So based on this, the code arrives at the proclamation. Now after proclamation, what is the procedure under the code? The proclamation is required to be advertised as well as made known. Making known of the proclamation is normally what we call as the Tom Tom which is being done. There is a requirement of the code officer who would go to that particular locality as well as the mortgage property and make a beats and say that this property is now being put up for auction sale. And this is the date on which the auction sale will happen. And there is a sale proclamation which has been made. Interested parties may have the same proclamation seen from the advertisement or they may have a look at the sale proclamation in the notice board of the concerned court. So this is one requirement the court says that there should be a beat and informing the public that there is a sale proclamation happening. Now in addition to that, the sale proclamation also has to be published in the newspapers. Now the rules also require that there is a specific timeline which has to be given. Without satisfying that timeline you cannot have a sale. So all these things have to be required, all these things have to be satisfied and these things have to be ensured to have been complied with. Now that takes to the stage of a sale happening. So at the first instance I am pointing out as to the procedures. Now I am not touching about specific provisions or specific rules about it. I am just giving an overview that is what I said I am trying to give an overview as an outsider. For that it gives an interest for you, you can look into it. I am referring to the particular provisions. Now in this process what happens once a sale proclamation is made, the court provides that there can be an instance where the judgment attack can come before the court and seek for postponement of the sale saying that I am ready to discharge the debt or he may come up saying that you set aside the sale proclamation on certain irregularities or there can be instances of third parties stepping in and saying that there is no saleable interest of the judgment attack therefore the entire sale proclamation is drawn. So these are all process which evolve in terms of the provisions under the court namely order 21 starting from rule 66 onwards. Rule 91 onwards you can find specific instances as to seeking for setting aside the sale in case that there are material irregularity. Then subsequent rule would provide setting aside the sale where there is no saleable interest. Then setting aside the sale on the ground that the debt is sought to be discharged. So all these provisions are there and every provision of this order 21 under the court in fact is an effectively an adjudication process. The executing court has the means of adjudicating and this also sometimes results in an order being passed as to the adjudication. Now this again gives rise to a challenge to this order where you will know that depending on what is the nature of order there is an appeal provision and in some instances there is no appeal provision. If there is no appeal provision you have the remedy of revision before the high court either it is under section 115 of CPC. If it is not an order which is reversible then you invoke normally article 227. So this is on the adjudication process which is involved as far as CPC at the first instance is concerned. Now second instance the sale happens on a particular day. Now what is that is required under the court? The sale can happen above the upset price. There cannot be a sale which is less than the upset price arrived at. This is one of the foremost requirement which has to be satisfied. Now above the upset price the auction purchaser bids for the property and a sale is confirmed in his favor. Now in terms of it what is required is that the sale proclamation would also set out certain terms and conditions for an auction purchaser to comply. For example on the auction being concluded on the day of auction there is a requirement that 25% of the bid amount has to be paid immediately. Now if it is not paid the auction can go on further. Now once this 25% is paid there is a confirmation in favor of the auction purchaser which again requires that the auction purchaser has to make his balance payment within a particular time as may be set out in the terms and conditions. So this is the conclusion of the auction as it is in terms of identifying the highest bidder and having a confirmation of the auction sale in favor of the highest bidder to enable him to make the balance payment and have the sale concluded. Now by itself is not a concluded sale. This is only a confirmation of the auction which has happened. Now this takes us to the further stage. Now at this concluded stage sale also there is the scope of the debtor or third party who can step in and still say that there is a requirement of this setting aside of the sale. Now this leads to the next question as to if the auction purchaser makes a compliance of the required terms and conditions in terms of making the balance payment. Once that is made he gets the confirmation as to the sale completion or sale becoming concluded. Now once sale is concluded the court is required either to issue a sale certificate or instances execute a sale deed in their favor. And at that stage what is further required to be seen is that there may be an instance where auction purchaser may come up and say that the sale is required to be set aside. He may point out that there are certain material irregularities or there are certain things which have not been disclosed or he may point out that there is no saleable interest or he may point out that the sale described the property described in the sale proclamation is actually not available on site. So these are all certain instances where the purchaser may step in. Now apart from all these things the purchaser will also have a challenge as to seeking for physical possession of the property. Now code also provides within order 21 a provision for the auction purchaser to make an application to the court asking for delivery of possession. Now this delivery of possession is again covered under two specific rules. The first rule would say the delivery of possession of the property in the possession and custody of a debtor. Then the second instance will say the delivery of possession in the occupation of a tenant or in the possession of some third party who is deriving some right from the debtor. So these two instances again CPC provides for the auction purchaser goes before the court he petitions the court. Now again an adjudication happens and the court will exercise its power to ensure that the physical possession is taken and delivered to the auction purchaser with the confirmation that the delivery of the property which has been sold in the public auction is handed over to the auction purchaser. Now this gives a complete conclusion as to the auction sale as contemplated under the civil procedure court. As I put it across to you I am pointing out to the fact that the court by itself under order 21 provides for all mechanisms as to the means or the criteria which has to be settled for an auction sale. The essentials which you look forward is there as part of the sale proclamation. Then you will also have provisions as regarding any challenges to the sale. You also have provisions as regarding confirmation, delivery of possession so forth and so on. And interestingly there is also a provision namely order 73 or so which also says that the court will have power to even call upon a third party to produce some documents before the court. So in the process of an auction sale under the civil procedure court the court will ensure that there is a complete conclusion as regarding each of these aspects. Now this takes us to the next avenue as regarding taxing statutes. Now when we come to taxing statutes one important law which we have to look at for the purpose of auction sale is income tax act. Now under the income tax act I am not going to take you through what are the niceties of the income tax act. Let us only assume that there is a demand and there is a conclusion of a proceedings under the income tax act by which an assessor is required to make a payment. Now he commits default. This enables the tax officer or tax recovery officer under section triple two as to what is the further process of recovering this tax which has been determined by the tax authority under the statute. Now that takes us to the position of looking into schedule one and schedule two of the income tax act. Now schedule one speaks about certificate procedures and schedule two speaks about recovery of tax. The operate procedure is provided under the schedule two of the income tax act which on the conclusion of the proceedings under the income tax act which results in the tax due being determined. Now it provides the procedure. At the first instance there is a requirement of a demand notice being served on the SSE to call upon the SSE to make the payment within a particular period of time. Now this demand notice has various consequences. The moment the demand notice is served upon the tax defaulter it operates as an injunction or an embargo upon the tax defaulter from dealing with any of his properties. There is a specific provision which says that after the receipt of the demand notice or after the service of the demand notice under the second schedule to the income tax rules the transfer is made, the transfer is void. So this is the seriousness as far as the demand notice is concerned. Now once this demand notice issued and other procedures also follow now the second schedule to income tax act also speaks about the attachment of property. Then on an attachment of property if it is a movables preservation and protection of those properties and how and movables under the tax rules has to be brought for sale. Then again coming back to the immobile property. Now again under the immobile property the second schedule to the income tax act sets out its own procedure which to some extent is akin to the procedures which are there under the code of civil procedure code but it deviates to a larger extent in the sense it doesn't provide for a participation of the data. What it requires is a service of notice. Beyond that there is no adjudication which is provided as far as the second schedule to the income tax act is concerned. Now effectively rule 53 of the second schedule to the income tax act enables sale of property by the tax recovery officer. Now rule 56 says there can be an auction sale of the property of the defaulting SSC. Then once an auction sale is brought about now rule 56 also requires that there is a sale proclamation which has to be drawn up by the tax recovery officer and this sale proclamation has to be published in the newspaper. Now what is interesting is that it also says that this publication if it is a property situated in a particular district it has to be made in the language of the district. This is the exact words which have been used there. So a publication in general and a publication which is in the language of the district is also essentially to be made. Then as in the other cases there are also timelines which are there that those timelines have to be provided in terms of which only an auction sale can happen. Now once this is complied as to the sale proclamation being drawn and sale proclamation being published which again going back to the what I said under the civil procedure court the sale proclamation is required to state the specific description of the property the boundaries, the extent and whatever be the upset price on which the property is brought for sale and the date of auction and the time of auction and the mode of auction if it is an E auction by online or if it is going to be an auction by an auctioner or if it is going to be an auction by the tax recovery officer himself and the place of auction. Now under the income tax rules it also provides that the auction can take place in the office of the tax recovery officer. So therefore a place of auction which is to be set then it will also require to set out what are the terms and conditions like if the auction is happening on the conclusion of the auction what is that which is required by the highest bidder to be done or what is that which is required by the tax officer to be done. Then it will also provide like in the case of the other instance that 25% of the bid amount has to be paid immediately then there is a time limit of 15 days being provided by which the balance has to be paid by the auction purchaser. Now interestingly these provisions will also give a kind of discretion to the tax recovery officer as to extension of certain times which he can consider but ultimately not beyond 15 days as far as the income tax rules are concerned and that has been upheld by the judgment or a division by judgment of metro cycle which also went up to the Supreme Court and Supreme Court said that these timelines have to be strictly followed. Now under the income tax rules again what is that is provided post auction. Now is there anything which the auction purchaser derives as a right or is there anything which there is an obligation on the part of the auction purchaser. Likewise on the part of the defaulter is there any rights which accrue to him even after post auction. Now essentially you will look at three different rules which says that there can be an application to set aside the auction and there can be an application to set aside the auction on the material irregularity or non-service of notice. Then there can be an application seeking for setting aside the auction on the point of non-availability of the saleable interest for the data. So these are again provided there. I thought I will also take you in detail as to these provisions when I speak about the recovery laws because one of the recovery laws in fact incorporates this as part of its legislation. So therefore that will also can be considered. So an outline if you look at when it comes to the question of movable properties the possession is required to be taken. When it comes to the question of movable properties if it is in a situation of where it will depreciate there is a requirement it has to be sold immediately. In other instances you can also have you are need you require to have a sale proclamation made and published and the property is put up for sale and sold in the manner as provided on the rules. Then immobile property as I said all the requirements which has to be seen. Now in this process again there is a requirement to look into what is the encumbrance on the property. Now in cases of tax recovery officer for the purpose of sale under the income tax act if he brings about the property what is required to be seen is that any known encumbrance is also required to be reflected. Now the question comes as to whether these known encumbrances will survive or will not survive. So this is one interesting interplay that you can see from the auction sale under the Civil Procedure Code auction sale under the taxing statutes and auction sale under the recovery process because in each of these cases what happens to the pre-existing charge or a charge or an encumbrance is created after a particular freedom say after the date of mortgage or after the date of attachment has to be dealt with and this is what is the essential thing which we can look at at three different contexts. One said about income tax act the other statutes which you can look at is the VAT Act which was with customs and central excise now including FEMA and allied laws which were there. Now as far as today's context is concerned all these things are covered under the GST. Therefore in cases of tax dues or determined tax dues or recovery from defaulters the under the GST Act what is provided is there is a specific rules which is said as customs attachment or property of defaulters for recovery of government dues rules 1995 which in fact effectively provides for the recovery of default under the customs act or arising under the customs. So this is an exercise of section 156 read with section 142 of the customs act 1962. And identical to that under the GST act you also have a provision. Now interestingly these rules and provisions also provide for procedure for attachment of property. Now this is essentially in cases of the government dues. Now like an income tax rules there is also a requirement as to drawing up of a certificate. Now in income tax route I said there is a demand notice which is being issued that is based on a recovery certificate which is made by the tax recovery office. Likewise these rules also provide that there is a requirement of an issuance of a certificate specifying the amount due from a particular person and that has to be sought to be executed. Now in the process of execution again a requirement of issuance of notice is there. Now this determines as to the further course of the defaulter as I said earlier the moment a notice is served he is restrained from dealing with property or any right which is dealt with on the property will be subject to the proceedings which effectively the provisions provide that will be treated as void. Then that takes to the attachment of property and a detailed procedure is also provided as regarding attachment. And effectively as I said in cases where the demand notice is served on the defaulter the determination is being treated as void. Then properties in the process of attachment if it is in the possession and enjoyment of the debtor or if in cases of properties which are with the third party then it also brings out to the procedure as to the sale of property. Then in this sale again as I said the procedures are almost the same in terms of a sale proclamation being made as to what is the property to be sold and what is the amount which is sought to be recovered and what is the mode of the sale which is going to happen and any other thing which is essential to be for the purchaser to know and what is the mode of this making of proclamation as I said this will also provide for the publication of this proclamation notice and making known of this proclamation notice and also service of this proclamation notice and in terms of which the auction takes place. So this is as regarding the other taxing laws which essentially is the GST act today almost akin to the procedure which we have seen under the income tax rules as well as the civil procedure code. But what will be relevant is that the areas which there are certain interplace which are happening which we will come to at the final stage. Now having said about the taxing statutes what is to be looked at is that apart from the civil procedure code and revenue recoveries which were required in terms of government dues. Now this can be also cases where under the ESI act or EPF act or under other taxing statutes or other tax dues which arise to the government namely if there is a property tax dues if there is professional tax dues under the local laws. So these were all areas which are also available. And these areas or these statutes or these dues which generally we call it as government dues or public dues had also a requirement of ensuring recovery. Now how this was being required is by the process of the Revenue Recovery Act. If you look at this Revenue Recovery Act it is one of the oldest act of 1890 and interestingly you will find even till date there are statutes which fall back to the Revenue Recovery Act. Any requirement of a dues to be recovered and if there is a default and if the person does not come forward to make the payment the recovery is made only by process of seeking to attach and sell the assets owned by them. Of course at the extreme end you will also have provisions for arrest let us not touch upon that that it is only I am pointing out for the academic purpose otherwise it is the recovery by attachment and sale of properties. Now wherever there is specific provision which is not provided or wherever instances where the provisions of code of civil procedure code does not have an application or the statute does not provide as in the case of income tax act or the customs act or sales tax act whatever it is then you will always have a fall back to the Revenue Recovery Act and interestingly you will find this is one of the very smallest statute of the year 1890 it has only about 10 sections and a schedule. Now here again you will see the enabling provision is section 3 which speaks about recovery of public demands by enforcement of process other than those which become payable and it also speaks about remedy available to a person denying liability to pay amount then it speaks about how the recovery has to be done where again there is a requirement of a collector's certificate which enables the revenue authorities to seek for attachment on sale of the properties under the Revenue Recovery Act. So this is required to be considered for the purpose of looking at the general statutes which were prevalent earlier. It is also in the context of where the statutes did not provide for a particular sale because ultimately what we are looking today is on the auction sale. So therefore on a wide spectrum if you look at what is to be seen is also the process which is covered under the Revenue Recovery Act. Now having said this the last part of the session would be on the recovery loss. Now how does this deal with as I pointed out in the introductory session when we come to the question of recovery loss the one of the foremost loss which recognized an auction sale without intervention of court was the state financial corporation act. Now under the state financial corporation act section 29 onwards provided a procedure as to how the dues are to be recovered. It in fact says section 29 the title is rights of financial corporation in cases of default. So by virtue of the name itself you can recognize these are only cases under state financial corporation acts like every state has got its own financial corporation and you have many number of state financial corporations under the central enactments. So these had the means of seeking to have certain specific rights in cases of default. So section 29 provided for it under section 29 the state financial corporation act were empowered to take possession of the industrial units. Now once the possession is taken it also empowered those state financial corporations to sell these properties by an auction without any intervention of court. Now again it doesn't set out a detailed procedure but 29 by itself with various subsections enables as to what is the modus which has to be adopted invariably being the public auction and invariably the same process of issuing a sale notice and if you look back to the requirements which have to be spelled out in the sale notice which will again be akin to what is there in the sale proclamations which we have seen under the earlier statutes. Now this will again say what is the description of the property, what is the upset price at which the property is sold and what are the essential terms and conditions. Now here again an issue as to the possession being taken and delivered came up comes up for consideration invariably under the state financial corporations act they had the right of first taking the physical possession and closing the unit and it also had the necessary assistance therefore they would have taken it and they ultimately sell it and in all these cases of state financial corporation act enforcement you will find that there was a pre-existing right created in pair of the state financial corporation act be it a simple mortgage or be it an equitable mortgage whatsoever. So in terms of which without the intervention of the court the state financial corporation act was also entitled to bring the property for auction sale. Now as we look at the solutions is there any rights flowing for the debtors rights flowing for these industrial units which suffer this section 29 action you can find that there was absolutely nothing. So most of these cases there was no specific grievance redressal mechanism or any checks and balances which were there. So what was the jurisprudence which has evolved is that in all these cases you will find that the people have gone before the high courts seeking for a payment as against the actions showing them as a state and in some instances you would have also have the suits filed for an injunction as against the sale which is published in a sale notice and in the process you negotiate for something and you make the payment but ultimately you will also have the jurisprudence that even in cases of state financial corporation act when the sale happens as a public auction the Honorable Supreme Court clearly set out that one of these authorities to ensure that a fair valuation is obtained for the property. They in fact specifically use the word saying that you are discharging a public duty and there is an obligation in the nature of a requirement to ensure that you step into the shoes of the debtor and the property is sold for the best price available or in the best manner which it can be done. So this jurisprudence has also evolved but as it is finding much of the interplace as regarding the rights of the auction purchaser or the rights of the debtor which comes up which we have discussed in the other places. So therefore this takes us to the next to two important legislations which came as regarding the recovery laws namely firstly at the first instance the DRT Act of 1996 which started with the words recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act. Now it has been amended as recovery of IBC. Now under the DRT Act it is primarily for a determination of debt by a specialized tribunal as regarding the dues payable to the banks and financial institutions. We need not have much of discussion of it. What is essential to be looked at is that at the first instance the tribunal has to determine the debt. Now once the tribunal determines the debt there is an order passed in an application filed by a bank or a financial institution of the debt as against the debtor or guarantor what so and what so. Now once this happens what is the manner in which the further recovery happens which is required for us to look into in the context of an auction sale is that there is a recovery certificate to be issued. In terms of the final order the act mandates that the presiding officer of the DRT has to issue a debt recovery certificate. Now once this debt recovery certificate is issued he passes on that to the recovery officer which is recognized under the enactment. Now this brings us to a particular chapter on the act by which from section 26 onwards to section 30 which speaks about the recoveries. Now section 25 at the first instance enables the recovery officer to recover the money specified in the recovery certificate by certain means which includes by attachment and sale of property by sale of remote property and mobile property by seeking for arrest of the debtors by seeking for disclosure of assets. Now interestingly by way of an amendment this provision was also expanded if I am correct it is including 25 D which also says that the recovery officer can seek for possession of the asset at the first instance then go ahead with it. Then section 26 27 provided as to what is the powers of the recovery officer what was essentially section 29 of the DRT Act. Now effectively if you look at section 29 29 is a provision which in fact brings into the ambit of DRT Act the second schedule of the income tax rules. So what it provides is that the recovery officer under the DRT Act can recover the dues by enforcing for a sale or attachment whatever it is in the manner as provided in the second schedule to the income tax act. Now this the provision the words specifically used under section 29 is that the second schedule provisions will be read into this act it will be read it as if those provisions are part of the DRT Act that is the ambit of section 29 and section 29 also says that it will be as far as possible and with such modification because these are essential words because second schedule of the income tax act speaks about tax recovery officer speaks about recovery of the dues of the defaulting SSC so forth and so on. So therefore in 29 they said as far as possible it has to be referred to and then it also says with such modification as may be required and interestingly it by a provision provision to section 29 it also says that wherever the word SSC is used in the second schedule to the rules it will be meant as the debt under the debt recovery certificate so this is clarifying in a clear terms so therefore as I first was referring to the second schedule income tax act now this also steps in the context of the DRT Act by virtue of section 29 so the recovery officer under the DRT Act for the purpose of recovery will again enforce only in terms of the second schedule to the therefore the same provisions as regarding issuance of a demand notice in terms of the recovery certificate now once a demand notice any private alienation becomes void will step in then the rules also provides that the recovery officer can ask for possession of the property in fact rule 48 would provide that the recovery officer will have power to remove obstructions in the property then as I said in the earlier instance rule 53 steps in by which the recovery officer is enabled to sell the property 56 will also provide for public auction to be conducted then the essential provisions which I spoke about as to the setting aside the sale which is essentially rule 60 which speaks about an application by the debtor seeking to setting aside the sale now this is in a context where the debtor will only say that I am ready to pay the debt so therefore he seeks for a time of 30 days so rule 60 enables that so once an auction is concluded if the debtor steps in and says that I am ready to make the payment I need 30 days time the recovery officer is permitted to provide that but what is required is that he has to make the entire payment for which the property was brought for sale not the sale amount or upset price which is specified the amount which was specified in the sale notice or the recovery certificate is the amount which the debtor has to deposit then he also has to make the payment of 5% of the auction price to enable the recovery officer to refund the amount to the auction purchaser who will also have the benefit of another 5% as a poundage now this is also provided under the CPC under the order 21 if you find wherever there is an instance of seeking an application for setting aside the sale the debtor also has to pay a 5% poundage to the auction purchaser so similar provision under rule 60 now there is so then one more requirement as far as rule 60 is that the moment you invoke rule 60 you have to make a pre deposit without making a pre deposit an application under rule 60 cannot be entertained now then provides for rule 61 now rule 61 says that there can be an application seeking for setting aside the sale on the grounds of non-service of notice as well as material irregularity this again provides that if an application is made under 61 there is a requirement of pre deposit only if a pre deposit is made the recovery officer can entertain this application and look into what is the grievance being projected then he will adjudicate upon then rule 62 says an application for setting aside the sale on the grounds of no saleable interest but interestingly rule 66 enables only the purchaser it is not available for the debtor or any third party to come and say that there is no saleable interest therefore you set aside the sale what is provided under rule 62 is only the purchaser can step in now therefore if this conclusion is there what ultimately ends up is rule 63 now rule 63 says that after the sale has happened and if there is no application filed either under 61, 62, and 63 either 60, 61, 62 or if an application is filed and disposed of then the recovery officer can confirm the sale in favor of the auction purchaser and what is the word interestingly used in rule 63 is that he shall pass an order confirming why I am giving an emphasis as far as this provision is concerned because the sale can be challenged under the second schedule in terms of these three rules interestingly there is also section 30 under the DRTR now without reference to rules I am going back to the original statute section 30 under the DRTR now section 30 says that any order of the recovery officer can be challenged by way of appeal to the presiding officer now when the word used is any order a question before the court is there whether and DRTR who had suffered a sale in the hands of the recovery officer can he directly oppose the presiding officer under section 30 so there had been some judgments, a judgment of the honorable madrasai court there has been a judgment of the honorable supreme court on this point saying that how you read into section 29 as well as how you read into section 30 because section 30 it starts with a non-abstracted clause understanding anything provided in section 29 so it is a very specific non-abstracted clause for section 29 there is a provision for appeal to be so therefore what is the jurisprudence which has evolved is that if there is an order passed by the recovery officer that order can be an order for the sale of the property that will be an appealable order then if there is an order passed by the recovery officer concluding the sale in terms of 63 for example have an instance where even before the expiry of 30 days because under rule 60 an application can be filed by the debtor in 60, 61 within 30 days so even before 30 days in an instance a recovery officer confirms and receives the entire money and conveys the property to the auction purchaser this may give a room to the debtor to challenge it directly under section 30 because in terms of section 63 there is an order to be passed and if this order is passed in violation of that particular rule it gives a right of appeal by way of section 30 now this apart any order of adjudication under rule 60, 61 and 62 will also give a right of appeal under section 30 likewise if there has been a sale now other than what is provided under rule 60, 61 and 62 instances where I am ready to decide the debt or instances where I am only specifically pointing out as to non-service of notice as to material irregularity relevant in the hands of the auction in the hands of the recovery officer or non-saleable if there are instances beyond the scope this and then again the sale ordering the order which goes for the sale will be also an appeal order of which can be appealed under section 30 now there is again further jurisprudence in terms of amendment which came under section 30 capital A which said that any challenge under section 30 to the end again a requirement of 50% of the debt to be deposited because at one point of time there was no requirement of debt therefore people would have normally invoked 30 instead of going before 60 rule 60, 61 so this is it now post this now under the income tax second schedule rules there is also provisions for the recovery officer to take possession to remove any obstruction and to remove the debt from possession of the property and put the auction purchaser in possession cases where there are third party interest which is stepping in or third party claimants which are stepping in that can again be adjudicated now this also has to be seen in the context at the first instance rule 11 also provides an adjudicatory mechanism by which the recovery officer can adjudicate any claims from any person as to the attachment made or sale contemplated so therefore if it is a third party under rule 11 it is provided for if it is a debtor under 60, 61 if it is a purchaser under 62 then any person not understanding anything in 29 by way of an appeal under section 30 before the recovery officer then the further adjudication which I said post sale now if in case possession could not be delivered to the auction purchaser by the recovery officer even invoking section further sections of 72 and 73 then what happens then auction purchaser has got a right to ask for refund of the money so this is also provided under the second schedule this brings to us an end as regarding the DRT act and auction sale under the DRT now this takes us to the next stage of surface act which is the subsequent legislation which came about effectively on finding that there was not much of a recovery process which was happening even after DRT act came and the huge NPS which still are pending these are all various reports which are there in the public which will say that the act was not so impossible or act did not give the desired results therefore surface act once it comes to surface act what is essential is that surface act again provides for sale of mortgage assets which they call it as a secured asset under the specific provisions of the enactment and what is a secured asset is a security interest created the law speaks about a security interest created now security interest will be again a mortgage created on the property or a charge created on the property whatever manner it is now this security interest which is created an asset becomes a secured asset in the hands of the creditor who is again termed as a secured creditor now under the surface act this secured creditor is entitled to go ahead and sell this property by a public auction without the intervention of court that is provided under section 13 as to the enforcement now 13 sub section 2 provides a requirement for demand notice now when we speak about the auction sale we have seen in the context of CPC providing a particular mode as to a decree being there and a decree sought to be executed then a notice being issued attachment then you saw all the revenue loss which will speak about the certificate to be drawn up in terms of the certificate if the notice to be issued then comes steps in the sale of the property which is happening now in cases of surface act all these things are not there a secured creditor determines for himself that this is the debt which I have to recover in terms of the contractual obligation now once that is determined and if it is a case of the account being classified as a non-performing asset that is one primary requirement which is in terms of the RBI guidelines now what is required is that he is required to do a notice of demand which is called which is under section 13 to also defined in rule 2 of the surface enforcement rules securitization interest enforcement rules which specifies what are the requirements which are to be there in the demand notice now and the rules also specify as to the service of this demand notice how the service has to be made now if the service is made by delivery then by a fixture and if there is an evade if there is some attempt to evade this notice and in spite of your attempts of trying to serve it in the normal residential address or normal business being carried out then paper publication to be made and a fixture in the last known address all those things are provided in the rules now once this 13 to demand notice is there there is a requirement of 60 days to be provided see within 60 days an objection can be given or reply can be given let us not travel much on those things but that itself is a huge jurisprudence and huge case laws which are traveling so which after the 60 days a right across to the secured delta to bring the property for sale that is recognized under section 13 4 now section 13 4 read with rule 8 and 9 sets out whatever procedure we have been speaking all along or we have been discussing all along recognized under the CPC recognized under the income tax rules the other revenue acts revenue recovery act all those things are encompassed within that rule 8 and 9 of the security interest enforcement 13 4 is an enabling provision which enables that I can recover the dues by seller sale of the property 13 4 also enables various other things we will not get into it now you come to rule 8 and 9 speaks about the mobile properties now is there anything about mobile yes it also speaks about the possession and sale of mobile properties under rule 4 3 and 4 now rule 4 specifies as to how the movements have to be dealt with rule 8 specifies how the sale process now under the surface act what is essential for a sale is that at the first instance taking of possession so the property has to be taken possession by delivering a possession notice which is provided in appendix 4 of the security enforcement rules now one this possession notice is delivered then it gives a right for you to go ahead with this sale now it also requires that you have to take a valuation drop a sale notice sale notice has to essentially disclose the details of the property description of the property and what is your upset price and what is the money which you are which you have to recover for which the property is being brought for sale then you have to specify any known encumbrance on the property then the modus of sale it can be by way of key auction sale or tender come public auction or only a public auction then relevant to dates there again a requirement would be that a 30 days clear notice has to be given before a sale is held then these rules also recognizes as to how the sale is made the authorized officer conducts the sale now while conducting the sale again here there is no requirement that the sale has to be conducted in the place of the property it normally happens in the office of the authorized officer and nowadays you have most of the sales which are happening by e auction sale which is an online mode people sit at different places there is a platform which is virtually there so you log in and you bid for the property and you take it now the rules would require that any auction sale there is a requirement of a 10% emd to be made and if you are declared as an highest auction purchaser on the day of auction the 25% of the bid amount has to be made less the 10% emd then within 15 days the balance has to be paid in fact rule enables that the authorized officer by virtue of a written agreement with the auction purchaser can also extend this period of 15 days which can at the most go up to 3 months so beyond that there is no other extension which can be provided for so this is the mode in which it happens now this again takes us to the question of is there any provisions for the auction purchaser as to his obligations or as to his rights similarly the debtor when you come to surface he act the debtor's rights to challenge the sale is under section 17 which has been clearly recognized when the provision when the enactment was upheld by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals which recognize that there is a checks and balances which are provided for in addition to that it also said that a challenge can be there before the DRP then one question came whether the challenge can be at the only at the instance before the sale is concluded that is on the sale or even after thereafter Supreme Court answered that in the Ashok Samuel case saying that even post sale there can be a challenge in terms of section 17 if you are able to make out a case of irregularity now interestingly what is to be seen in the entire context of a mortgage property right from the foreclosure suit and the enforcement of a decree under the civil procedure court as well as under the DRP surface act is that this is the right of redemption or to what extent this right of redemption is protected under these statutes now surface act initially said that under section 13 subsection 8 the right of redemption will be there till the property is sold and transferred now the sold and transferred become a scope for huge jurisprudence because one of the earliest judgments of 1977 of the Honorable Supreme Court said that the transfer would effectively mean after the registration of the registration of the sale certificate as well as delivery of the possession of the property so what had happened even in a mortgage suit post foreclosure and an exhibition petition being filed and a sale being conducted by the exhibiting court thereafter at that instance the debtor steps in and says that I want to exercise my right of redemption I want to pay the dues a question came up whether it can be done but in that particular facts and circumstances examining that the Honorable Supreme Court said since the registration has not happened since the delivery of possession has not happened till such time the right of redemption is protected now this judgment was also referred to by the Honorable Supreme Court in the Maria Chemicals as saying that this protection is still there so in terms of which 13 8 was also there but what is interesting is that by an amendment in 2018 now this has been now restricted to a point that 13 8 right of redemption will be only till the sale notice is published beyond that it says today there cannot be any right of redemption this has been uphold by the Honorable Supreme Court in one of the judgments of the year 2019 so this is the auction sale which we are speaking about as far as surface is concerned so on a overhaul as I set out to you the ground as to what is the process which is being considered what is the means of the checks and balances or adjudication which is there you could have seen the interplay in terms of CPC provided many many adjudication process at every stage at the stage of even a sale proclamation at the stage of sale being conducted post sale and by way of objections as I said in case of mortgage even till the end when the possession was resisted so this was taking huge time but ultimately as a right you can look at the rights were being adjudicated upon and every adjudication was giving rise to further proceedings which were coming about then in the next stage of taxing statutes you will find there again certain rights were recognized by specific provisions as to challenges to the sale as to adjudications which were sought like when I said about rule 11 under the second schedule to income tax rule you will find the rule 11 adjudication the recovery officer was also empowered to say under subsection 5 that the parties can go before a civil court and establish a right so till such time it will be kept pending so recovery officer will adjudicate upon any third party who comes in saying that this property should not be sold or I have a right of interest or I am in possession of it in the process he can also delegate the parties to go before the civil court so there is again an adjudication as I said when rule 60 61 62 and 63 confirmation which happens the conclusion had happened only if there is an order by the recovery officer which order is required to be passed after the passing of 30 days giving the time for the debtor to step in from there if you come to the surface yet it had in fact traveled much beyond all these things much of the adjudication has come only in the context of a challenge under section beyond that there is not much which is left behind this is what I find as an interplay as regarding all these statutes which govern about the auction sale I did not take into much detail because of the constraint of time I wanted to just give a bird's eye view and now at the final stage I will only set set out certain judgments which will be of some use for the participants at the first instance as I said the earliest judgment is 1977 3 SCC page 247 it is a three-judge bench of the honorable supreme court titled as Naran Das, Karan Swadas versus SA Kamtham and another now this dealt with the right of redemption under the transfer of property act it also dealt with the sale which has happened in under the civil procedure court and therefore it recognized those rights which followed now with that you can also look at 2012 11 SCC page 511 which is the case of Ram Kishan and others versus state of Uttar Pradesh now this judgment dealt with contracts act in the context of liability of assurity and guarantor it dealt with the debt monetary loss in terms of the public demands or revenue recovery acts in the context of UP Zamindari abolition land reform so forth so forth it also dealt with the provisions of CPC under order 21 rule 64 to 67 likewise order 34 rule 4 and 5 an extensive judgment which dealt with so many aspects now very very interesting is that this judgment in fact in fact equated this right of redemption or right to challenge an auction sale as a constitutional right referring to article 300 and interestingly it said it is a human right to be considered this is this this judgment holds good till day and this judgment has been referred to in many other cases also subsequently but this was one state judgment which in fact recognize that right to property in the context of an auction sale in the context of whatever provisions I refer to CPC debt recovery loss and other revenue recovery acts also and it said as I said a right to property is also a human right so therefore referring to article 300 of the constitution it gave a higher pedestal as to these challenges now then you can look at 2015 7 SCC 337 the case of central bank of India versus CL Vimaland others which again spoke about contract tax liability of the guarantor debt tax now it spoke about the rights of auction purchaser when a sale of mortgage property happened now there was a case where there was a challenge to the sale on the ground that there were joint owners to the property and one of the property did not his rights were dealt with without even being put on notice now interestingly what supreme court in that case dealt with is that rights of the auction purchaser when sale of mortgage property is confirmed and the auction purchaser put in possession for long back technical defects in conduct of auction sale equity and good conscious applicability conduct of auction purchaser versus conduct of debtors and guarantors the relevancy was spoken to so it considered in the context that you also have to look at what is the equity which has to be seen as between the auction purchaser as well as the defaulting debtor then you have 2016 6 SCC 397 a case of Nirmal Singh through his legal representatives which has which dealt with about recovery under the Revenue Recovery Act in terms of in the case of ESI dues as areas of land revenue so this judgment dealt at length about the Revenue Recovery Proceedings and how a sale happens what is the revenue officers who have a role in terms of such sale then you have 2016 one SCC 724 case of State of Punjab versus Bandi Singh again an auction process in the government contracts which spoke about cartelization and pooling and where the scope for challenge comes is not directly in the statutes which we dealt with I only took out this judgment on the point that the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of cartelization and pooling and where there can be a provision provided for challenge of these things these are the judgments which I wanted to tell and finally there is one judgment of 2018 one SCC page 626 which is Agarwal Track Home Private Limited versus Punjab National Bank this is in the context of the CERFAC Act where they said even an auction purchaser can be treated as an agreed party and he is entitled to invoke section 17 and go before the DRP so these are the few judgments which I wanted to just share with the participants of the day which will give a lot of insight as you go through these judgments with these few words and with this discussion I end my session I thank you all for this thank you for coming back for such a wonderful Sunday evening most of you I hope that you have sacrificed your family time to be part of this session thank you very much we had one of the sessions where it was said that a lawyer always will have to sacrifice his family time for the professional growth so I think those who have wanted that they have taken things that forward this is by Santin Kumar whether DRP Act will prevail over the Tendency Act like the surface sea of tenants has a right to approach this DRP Act DRP Act in terms of one of the judgments said that the recovery officer cannot prevail over the Tendency laws he would be bound by the Tendency laws but ultimately a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court said the recovery officer would also be entitled to adjudicate upon the rights of a tenant now this is in the context as to when the tenancy sets in they have seen in two different contexts one is that post mortgage if the tenancy sets in is there a compliance in terms of the transfer of property act section 65 if it is in compliance rights follow in a different manner if it is not in compliance of that section it stands determined this is what the final Supreme Court judgment I just don't remember in fact the amendment has come section 174A the tenancy has been amended so his plea can be answered by that after the Supreme Court judgment came then on 17 section 174A was amended to the effect that even the tenant will be his jurisdiction will be ousted and under the surface act itself it is provided that the being a special act it will prevail over the civil act this is I have an auction purchaser this is by Kosh Sharma Mr. Mr. Mr. I am the auction I have purchased the property of the borrower not the ongoing business the government has sent me the letter stating government use of borrower would I be liable to pay they said use of borrower the government have made a charge why I am interested in the property for the government use of borrower now if it is going if it is a sale under the DRT act and surface act by virtue of the amendment where 26 ABCD have been brought in now all those government use also will stand negated you have to fight it as to the priority which are set in but there are cases which are still pending court is looking at considering as to when it will get the effect whether it is retrospective or prospective but as of today as an auction purchaser you get the property free from income runs and it is only based on the priority if the priority of the bank had been at the prior point of time and in terms of which a sale has happened you are entitled to have the property none of the other government use will continue with the property isn't it in certain litigation they have mentioned that once the property auction property says as is various basis that will also include that the charges let's assume there is an electricity act one of the judgments on the electricity act basis the electricity act provides for that it was incumbent upon him to check as to whether there are any that is now subject to March of law in terms of amendment which came and the subsequent judgments which came there is one Kerala High Court judgment which extensively deals with this which has been now and there are matters which are pending before the Supreme Court in cases of sales tax dues and there are matters pending before various high courts also on this aspect but today the March of law is that all other dues it's wiped off this is by Chandasekhar what about the person who had obtained a decree basing on a post sale agreement decree based on post sale agreement post sale agreement after the sale has happened he has got a decree if it is after the sale he cannot have any sale even prior to sale if it is after the mortgage there is no possibility of it so there have been instances where private parties have gone for execution of degrees and got attachment of the property which property was already subjected to mortgage in fair of the bank now if an auction purchaser has purchased the property he gets that property free from all income runs including that attachment now what courts have only said is that you have to go back to that executing court appraise the court and get the attachment set aside or get the attachment raised there is one division bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court which specifically provided that it has to be taken to the executing court and you can have the attachment raised so in terms of which there are various judgments which are following through saying that even if there had been an attachment by an unsecured data if that attachment or that due is forced to the mortgage which was created that cannot survive it cannot travel with the property so the attachment gets defeated there is a bar of non-agriculturist purchasing agriculture land in Maharashtra can in DRT and surfacing auction what will be the status of a non-agriculturist purchaser? Effectively if a legal surfacing is ruled out because surfacing clearly says that agriculture property is exempted from the purview of that in cases of DRT if it is a mortgage property it again subject to whatever the local laws are there this situation is also there in Karnataka where they said an agriculture property cannot be purchased by a non-agriculturist so that local laws will prevail in terms of which only an auction can happen so what is required is that if somebody steps in mortgage can be there if there is a permission which has been obtained at the first instance in terms of the enforcement of mortgage the property can be brought for sale so what is required is that an auction purchaser who steps in to purchase he has to satisfy or he has to be eligible in terms of the local law one of the cases that is also finding to the effect that let's assume it is undocumented as a agriculturist but the intent is you are having the industry etc then it will no longer have the flavors of the agricultural land so you have to see electricity connection or you have got the conversion etc so here you have it and this is what GRS tenancy law is a state subject and surfacing act is a union list if the tenancy specifically provides can that be overruled by an RO that is what I said it can be overruled by adjudicating upon and based upon whatever the courts have held as to whether the tenancy is protected under a particular state tenancy law and number one point number two would be that nature of tenancy whether it is such a nature that it abrogates the provisions of transfer of property as regarding lease that has been set out supreme court in clear terms saying that there can be only 11 months lease which is not covered under the transfer of property act and there cannot be a lease which is defeating the mortgages right so all those things are covered so in that context today the recovery officer also has a right to adjudicate upon it this is on the YouTube by Silva in RO proceedings after receiving the sales certificate the auction proposal realized that there is a shortage of land area and neighborhood and towards the common pathway can recovery officer be appointed can appoint a local commissioner in such a case recovery officer can definitely appoint a local commissioner and this these are all the areas where this ass is where his conditions will step in they will ultimately say that based on the document the sale is being proclaimed and based on whatever it is there have been so many instances where there is shortfall which is there but auction purchaser is bound to take it as it is only point the requirement of some possession to be secured or identified as you said local commissioner can be appointed by the recovery officer in terms of which local commissioner can identify, demarcate and put in possession of the auction purchaser and in spite of all this exercise if there is still a shortfall then auction purchaser has to take it there is no other way and that is where I said section 25 amendment in fact now brought about that you can also have a commissioner appointed to take possession of property so earlier the recovery officer was only required to attack sell it post sell he had a power under second schedule to take possession and deliver but today 25D enables that he can even take possession at the first instance then go ahead with the other process thank you sir we have taken all the questions participant Mr. Harish raising his hand no he had posted that question I think he had posted that question yes whom you are saying because the person who raised the questions I will just check it out Harish most of the cases what happens is that you have specific instances before you therefore you like to have it and there are issues which are pending before courts also Om Prakash sir the Karnataka land reforms act has been amended now non-agriculture is to buy property but the notification is under challenge and it is pending before the high court of Karnataka last year they have amended the Karnataka land reforms act thank you sir information I just stepped in that's a very good information I can share that notification to Vikas also if you are part of the whatsapp group once you share it I will share it I will share that I am on the whatsapp group I also have to thank Mr. Joseph Prabhakar my friend advocate who had he puts as regarding this revenue enactments taxing statutes and he had only shared me the customs notification rules which were there in regard to CLA thank you sir thank you for an excellent session thank you the session as usual of Mr. Om Prakash was quite stimulating for the thoughts and he covers the white spectrum whatever rather on the session on the invite we had only written tax laws, civil procedure and the surface act Mr. Om Prakash took the session across the GST all taxing statutes etc and it was quite heartening to learn lot of decisions but we have also received the request that the judgment may be shared so I request sir to share the judgment we will share it in the group thank you friends for joining us as Mr. Om Prakash said on a Sunday and we are also thankful to the study legal circle and the legal the next turtles to join us for the session and on Tuesday we will be having a session on right to information act procedure, practice and legal provisions that is by Mr. Silesh Javdi a former chief commissioner of former central commissioner of under the RTI act thank you everyone stay connected and stay blessed thank you the entire next team we are grateful that they have connected with us thank you