ORDER IA No. 1 1. The appellant herein is a “notified person” within the meaning of Section 3(2) of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. His properties are under attachment. There is huge demand of arrears of income tax. The assessments have been made by the assessing officer and also confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner. Further appeals preferred by the appellant are pending before the Tribunal. Out of the several properties under attachment, the following four are proposed to be sold: 1.Flat No. 42, Chitrakoot, Chitrakoot Coop. Housing Society, Altamount Road, Mumbai- 400 026. 2.Flat (1/8th share) No. 91, 9th Floor, Chitrakoot, Altamount Road, Mumbai- 400 026 3.Flat (1/8th share) No. 92 9th Floor, Chitrakoot, Altamount Road, Mumbai- 400 026 4.Business Premises No.1, 2nd Floor, No. 208, Regent Chambers Nariman Point, Mumbai. 2. By order dated 17-3-2004, the Special Court has allowed an application filed by the Custodian to sell the property belonging to the appellant. The principal grievance raise in the appeal is that the property should not have been directed to be sold without undertaking an investigation under Section 9-A of the Act. 3. This IA has been filed seeking stay on the proposed sale of the properties during hearing of this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant applicant submits that until and unless the appeals pending before ITAT are decided the recovery cannot be effected. The said prayer is vehemently opposed on behalf of the Custodian. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments of this Court in the cases of L.S. Synthetics Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd., (2004) 11 SCC 456, in particular paras 25 to 29 and 45 (ii) and Harshad Shantilal Mehta v. Custodian, (1998) 5 SCC 1 para 19. The learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on CWT v. Kantilal Manilal, (1985) 2 SCC 343 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 327 which, in our opinion, does not help him. 6. The prayer made in the application is refused. Sale cannot be postponed awaiting decision of the Tribunal as there is no stay on recovery and demand is outstanding. However, Flat No. 42, Chitrakoot, Chitrakoot Coop. Housing Society, Altamount Road, Mumbai is claimed to be the residential house of the appellant applicant and his family members. 6. The prayer made in the application is refused. Sale cannot be postponed awaiting decision of the Tribunal as there is no stay on recovery and demand is outstanding. However, Flat No. 42, Chitrakoot, Chitrakoot Coop. Housing Society, Altamount Road, Mumbai is claimed to be the residential house of the appellant applicant and his family members. As a matter of equitable relief, let the Special Court and the Custodian initially proceed with the sale of properties other than Flat No. 42, Chitrakoot. After realising the sale proceeds of other properties, if the claims are not satisfied then Flat No. 42, Chitrakoot may be subjected to sale. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as against tax assessment, appeals are pending before the Tribunal. It is admitted that there is no interim order of stay against recovery granted by the Tribunal. We clarify that the appellant is at liberty to seek an order of stay from the Tribunal and if the Tribunal stays the recovery then the question of properties being subjected to sale for recovery of the amount which is stayed may not arise. However, this does not amount to expression of any opinion by us on the question whether the Tribunal would grant stay or not, which question lies within the discretion of the Tribunal. 8. We also clarify that the order is confined to disposing of the appellant applicant’s aforesaid four properties only. IA No. 3. 9. The alleged mortgages from the co-owners of the properties which are under attachment and proposed to be sold by the Special Court, have staked their claim in this Court for the first time. We express no opinion on the merits of their claim or their locus standi to move the application. They are at liberty to move the Special Court. The prayer for their impleadment in this Court is also refused. ******************