JUDGMENT : N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J. W.P.No.13854 of 2014 is filed challenging the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai/first respondent herein, made in M.A.No.67 of 2014 dated 6.5.2014 against I.A.No.82 of 2013 in Appeal No.16 of 2012. 2. W.P.No.13855 of 2014 is filed to quash the order made in M.A.No.130 of 2013 against Appeal No.16 of 2012 dated 6.5.2014 on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai/first respondent herein. 3. The case of the petitioner in both the writ petitions are as follows: (a) The property comprised in Survey No.7/2A, 110 Kulathur Village, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District, belonged to one Kuttiammal. Petitioner is her son and he is the Cultivating Tenant in respect of the property to an extent of 4.40 acres. The said Kuttiammal stood as Guarantor for the loan availed by M/s.Sabari Paper Products and executed a guarantee agreement on 6.10.1998 for raising loan of Rs.7,17,716/- in Indian Overseas Bank, Pollachi Branch. Petitioner was recognised as a Cultivating Tenant in respect of the said property by order dated 28.11.1988. (b) The loan amount having not been repaid by the borrower, the bank filed civil suit in O.S.No.123 of 1989 before the Sub-Court, Udumalapet for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,14,653.99 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and in the said suit an ex parte preliminary decree was passed against the said Kuttiammal on 18.7.1994. Thereafter, final decree application was filed in I.A.No.358 of 2002, which was also decreed on 20.10.2003. In the said final decree application, petitioner herein was impleaded as one of the legal heir of the deceased Kuttiammal, who died during pendency of the suit. (c) For realisation of the decree amount, Bank filed an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore in O.A. No.43 of 2005 on 24.1.2005 and a recovery certificate was issued in DRC 45 of 2008 on 24.3.2008. As per the recovery certificate, a demand notice was issued followed by proclamation of sale on 31.7.2008. (d) The petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.2113 of 2008 before the Recovery Officer stating that sale of Schedule-I property alone would be sufficient for satisfying the entire loan amount and exclude Schedule-II property from auction. The Recovery Officer dismissed the said application on 13.3.2009, against which the petitioner preferred Appeal No.1 of 2009 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. (d) The petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.2113 of 2008 before the Recovery Officer stating that sale of Schedule-I property alone would be sufficient for satisfying the entire loan amount and exclude Schedule-II property from auction. The Recovery Officer dismissed the said application on 13.3.2009, against which the petitioner preferred Appeal No.1 of 2009 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. In the said appeal, I.A.No.522 of 2009 was filed for grant of stay of all further proceedings pending disposal of the appeal. DRT dismissed the said interim application on 24.4.2009. Aggrieved over the said order petitioner preferred appeal in M.A.No.278 of 2010 before the DRAT, Chennai and challenged the order dated 24.4.2009 made in I.A.No.522 of 2009. (e) The Recovery Officer conducted auction and sale certificate was also issued on 20.7.2009. The said sale certificate was cancelled on 21.7.2009 by the Recovery Officer, as the appeal filed by the petitioner in M.A.No.278 of 2010 was allowed by the DRAT on 13.6.2011 directing the DRT, Coimbatore to take up Appeal No.1/2009 itself for disposal expeditiously. According to the petitioner, after the matter was remitted an order was passed on 13.3.2012 by DRT, Coimbatore directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs on or before 31.3.2012 and the remaining outstanding amount within 60 days for redeeming the property. (f) The Auction Purchaser viz., the 4th respondent filed I.A.No.278 of 2012 for impleading herself and also filed I.A.No.285 of 2012 for reviewing the order dated 13.3.2012. The impleadeing petition was allowed on 3.4.2012. (g) Petitioner filed application for issuing the certified copy of the proceedings dated 3.4.2012 and the same having not been furnished, he preferred W.P.No.11113 of 2012 before this Court praying for direction to the Presiding Officer to issue copy of the proceedings, wherein an order of stay dated 19.4.2012 was granted staying the order made on 13.3.2012. This Court by order dated 26.4.2012 disposed of the writ petition ordering transfer of Appeal No.1 of 2009 on the file of DRT, Coimbatore to DRT-II, Chennai. Based on the said order, the appeal was transferred to DRT-II, Chennai and re-numbered as Appeal No.16 of 2012 and thereafter petitioner obtained certified copy of the order dated 3.4.2012. (h) On 21.12.2012 petitioner filed appeal before DRAT against the order in I.A.No.278 of 2012 dated 3.4.2012. Petitioner also preferred I.A.No.34 of 2013 to defer hearing of Appeal 16 of 2012. (h) On 21.12.2012 petitioner filed appeal before DRAT against the order in I.A.No.278 of 2012 dated 3.4.2012. Petitioner also preferred I.A.No.34 of 2013 to defer hearing of Appeal 16 of 2012. (i) It is the contention of the petitioner that on 19.3.2013 petitioner filed I.A.No.82 of 2013 for permitting the petitioner to redeem the mortgaged properties. DRT-II, Chennai, without deciding the said application, having proceeded with the hearing of the Appeal No.16 of 2012, petitioner filed W.P.No.6679 of 2013 and obtained an interim stay on 19.3.2013 on condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.15 lakhs within a period of four weeks. Petitioner deposited the said sum of Rs.15 lakhs in compliance with the condition of stay order on 4.4.2013. (j) W.P.No.6679 of 2012 was disposed of on 30.4.2013 by giving direction to DRT-II, Chennai to dispose of I.A. Nos. 34 and 82 of 2013 along with Appeal No.16 of 2012. DRT dismissed the said appeal as well as interim applications by order dated 28.7.2013 and the said orders were challenged by filing appeals before the DRAT. The same were disposed of on 6.5.2014. The said orders are challenged in these writ petitions. (k) The contention raised by the petitioners are that the Recovery Officer failed to appreciate Rule 52(1) of Schedule-II of Income-tax Act, 1961 which states that the Recovery Officer is empowered to sell only portion of the properties attached, that would be sufficient to satisfy the sale certificate and the petitioner having given consent for sale of Schedule-I property in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.2113 of 2008 on 21.8.2008, Recovery Officer is bound to sell only the said property and cannot sell the second schedule property. (l) It is further contended that the sale becomes absolute only after confirming the sale under Rule 63(1) of Schedule-II of Income- tax Act, and in the absence of confirming the sale, sale does not become absolute and sale certificate cannot be issued. The sale certificate already issued having been cancelled on 21.7.2009, the sale has not become absolute creating any right on 4th respondent. Therefore, Tribunal ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioner seeking to redeem the mortgaged properties. (m) The Appellate Tribunal having allowed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and also permitted the petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs.15 lakhs, petitioners right of redemption was recognised. Therefore, Tribunal ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioner seeking to redeem the mortgaged properties. (m) The Appellate Tribunal having allowed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and also permitted the petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs.15 lakhs, petitioners right of redemption was recognised. No order of confirmation of sale having been passed, no vested right is created in favour of the Auction Purchaser and totally a sum of Rs.20 lakhs has been deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order of DRAT as well as the order of this Court. Therefore, petitioners right to redeem the property is bound to be accepted and orders passed by DRT are liable to be set aside. 4. The third respondent Bank filed common counter-affidavit contending as follows: (i) M/s.Sabari Paper Products, a proprietory concern belonging to one Durairaj, father of the petitioner, availed credit facilities from the Bank, for which petitioners mother Kuttiammal stood as Guarantor. She had mortgaged the properties stated under sale proclamation dated 18.3.2009 and the said mortgage was created in the year 1981. (ii) The borrower committed default, pursuant to which suit bearing O.S.No.123 of 1989 was filed before the Sub-Court, Pollachi for recovery of Rs.7,17,716.78, which was decreed on 18.7.1994 and a final decree proceeding was initiated and final decree was also passed on 20.10.2003. Before the said final decree proceedings, the defendant in the suit died and the petitioner and other legal heirs, were brought on record. Petitioner was shown as 8th defendant in the final decree proceedings. (iii) As the recoverable amount exceeded Rs.10 lakhs, third respondent applied for recovery certificate by filing O.A.No.43 of 2005 and DRT issued recovery certificate on 13.3.2008 for recovery of Rs.17,15,633/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 4.2.2005. Based on the recovery certificate, a demand notice was issued by the Recovery Officer on 9.4.2008 for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,35,823.72 together with subsequent interest. In spite of receiving notice, the petitioner failed to pay the amount. (iv) Proclamation notice was issued on 31.7.2008 and only thereafter petitioner filed I.A.No.2113 of 2008 claiming that he is the Cultivating Tenant of Schedule-II property. His contention was that sale of Schedule-I property is sufficient and sale certificate in respect of Schedule-II property may be issued in his favour. (iv) Proclamation notice was issued on 31.7.2008 and only thereafter petitioner filed I.A.No.2113 of 2008 claiming that he is the Cultivating Tenant of Schedule-II property. His contention was that sale of Schedule-I property is sufficient and sale certificate in respect of Schedule-II property may be issued in his favour. The Recovery Officer considered the said plea and having noticed that valuation of both the lands put together is around Rs.17.10 lakhs as against the claim of more than Rs.20 lakhs, did not accept the said prayer and dismissed the interim application, pursuant to which the Recovery Officer issued sale proclamation on 18.3.2009 for the sale of mortgaged property fixing last date for receiving tenders on 21.4.2009 to conduct auction on 22.4.2009. The said sale was postponed to 24.4.2009. (v) Due to pendency of I.A.No.522 of 2009 filed by petitioner, which was dismissed on 24.4.2009, Recovery Officer conducted the sale and fourth respondent became successful being the highest bidder, who offered Rs.20,25,000/- and also paid the entire sale consideration and sale certificate was issued in her favour on 2.7.2009. As against the order in I.A.No.522 of 2009 dated 24.4.2009, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner and obtained conditional stay order on 22.5.2009. Without noticing the said order, sale certificate having been issued on 2.7.2009, the same was cancelled by the Recovery Officer. However, the sale was not set aside. (vi) It is the contention of the Bank that the property having been sold pursuant to sale proclamation issued on 18.3.2009, remedy open to the petitioner is to challenge the said proclamation of sale and exercise right of redemption under Rules 60 and 61 of Schedule-II of Income-tax Act, 1961 within the time provided in the rule to set aside the sale stating irregularities, etc. Petitioner though filed application before the Recovery Officer seeking the right of redemption, after dismissal of the same, the proclamation dated 18.3.2009 issued was not challenged. For filing an application seeking redemption of property which was sold in auction sale, petitioner has to deposit the entire dues, which is a pre-condition under Rule 60(1) of Schedule-II to Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence the petitioner has no right to agitate in these writ petitions as he has not filed the application within the stipulated time by depositing the entire amount. 5. The 4th respondent also filed common counter-affidavit and supported the contention of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner has no right to agitate in these writ petitions as he has not filed the application within the stipulated time by depositing the entire amount. 5. The 4th respondent also filed common counter-affidavit and supported the contention of the petitioner. According to the 4th respondent, notice of proclamation of sale was issued on 31.7.2008 pertaining to total extent of 4.9 acres of land and called upon the petitioner and legal heirs of Durairaj and Kuttiammal to repay a sum of Rs. 20,35,823/- as ordered by the DRT, Coimbatore. The said amount having not been paid, proclamation of sale of the entire extent of scheduled property measuring 4.9 acres was issued on behalf of the Bank by the Recovery Officer, DRT, Coimbatore. 4th respondent participated in the auction and the bid amount quoted by her being Rs.20.20 lakhs, the same was confirmed and the said amount was also paid before the DRT, Coimbatore on 22.4.2009. Though interim stay in I.A.No.887 of 2009 was granted by DRAT, Chennai on condition to deposit a sum of Rs.4 lakhs, the said conditional order was not complied with by the petitioner and further direction to clear the entire dues was stayed at the instance of the petitioner on the ground that the 4th respondent filed implead petition. It is also the contention of the 4th respondent that the sale having been completed and the sale proceeds having been deposited by the 4th respondent, the remedy open to the petitioner is only to file an application seeking redemption of the property under Rule 60 of Schedule-II of Income Tax Rules by depositing the entire dues and the petitioner having not chosen to avail the said remedy, petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from the Court. Interim application filed seeking redemption of the property was belated and depositing the entire dues is a mandatory pre-condition for filing application for redemption of the property under the said statutory provision. Therefore the 4th respondent has prayed for dismissal of these writ petitions. 6. Mr. S. Silambannan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that even though petitioner has filed I.A.No.82 of 2013 on 19.2.2013 to redeem the property mentioned in Schedule-II in view of the earlier order passed in I.A.No.887 of 2009 on condition to deposit Rs. Therefore the 4th respondent has prayed for dismissal of these writ petitions. 6. Mr. S. Silambannan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that even though petitioner has filed I.A.No.82 of 2013 on 19.2.2013 to redeem the property mentioned in Schedule-II in view of the earlier order passed in I.A.No.887 of 2009 on condition to deposit Rs. 4 lakhs in two installments on or before 26.6.2009 and 27.7.2009 and the petitioner having deposited first installment on 24.6.2009, right of the petitioner to redeem the property by paying the sale amount is not lost, and therefore the respondents are not justified in contending that the petitioner has not deposited the sale amount at the time of filing application to redeem the property mentioned in Schedule-II. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has deposited a total sum of Rs. 20 lakhs, petitioner is entitled to get Schedule-II property and to that extent, the order of the DRAT is liable to be set aside. 7. Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Auction Purchaser/4th respondent on the other hand submitted that even though indulgence was shown by the DRT to remit a sum of Rs.4 lakhs in two installments after remitting a sum of Rs.2 lakhs petitioner himself insisted to suspend the order merely because implead petition was ordered impleading the auction purchaser as a party. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that once the auction sale is conducted, the remedy open to the borrower/guarantor to redeem the property is to follow the mandatory conditions contained in Rules 60 and 61 of the Income- tax Act, 1961. The deposit of entire amount is a pre-condition for filing application to redeem the property within 30 days. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2008) 12 SCC 582 (Janatha Textiles v. Tax Recovery Officer) and argued that the Auction Purchaser being a bona fide purchaser, should be given the property sold through auction. 8. Mr. F. B. Benjamin George, learned counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that the petitioners request to proceed against the first schedule property was not considered as the value of the entire property was only Rs.19.50 lakhs. 8. Mr. F. B. Benjamin George, learned counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that the petitioners request to proceed against the first schedule property was not considered as the value of the entire property was only Rs.19.50 lakhs. The learned counsel also supported the stand of the Auction Purchaser and submitted that though I.A. No. 82 of 2013 is filed on 19.2.2013, no amount was deposited by the petitioner and the interim application itself was filed after the period of limitation and therefore the petitioners right to redeem the property no longer survives. 9. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioners mother viz., Kuttiammal stood as a Guarantor for the loan availed by M/s. Sabari Paper Products and a decree was passed in the civil suit at the instance of the Bank in O.S.No.123 of 1989 before the Sub-Court, Ulundurpet for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,17,716.78 against the said Kuttiammal. The said suit was filed on 24.4.1989. A preliminary decree was passed on 18.7.1994. When final decree proceeding was pending the said Kuttiammal died on 7.1.2003 and the petitioner got himself impleaded as legal heir along with other legal heirs in I.A.No.358 of 2002 in O.S.No.123 of 1989. Final decree was passed on 20.10.2003 and for issuing recovery certificate, application was filed under Section 31A of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as RDDB&FI Act) in O.A.No.43 of 2005 on 24.1.2005. Recovery certificate was ordered by the DRT, Coimbatore on 10.5.2007, based on which certificate was issued for Rs.20,35,823.72 on 9.3.2008. Demand notice was issued to the judgment Debtor on 9.4.2008. 11. On 21.8.2008 petitioner filed I.A.No.2113 of 2008 in R.P.No.45 of 2008 before DRT, Coimbatore and prayed to sell first item of property at the first instance and permit the petitioner to pay the balance amount after adjusting sale proceeds of Schedule-I and issue sale certificate of Schedule-II in his favour. The said application was dismissed by the Recovery Officer on 13.3.2009 on the ground that the valuation of the entire property was only Rs.19.50 lakhs. Sale notice was issued and auction sale was conducted on 22.4.2009. Auction purchaser deposited auction sale amount of Rs.20.20 lakhs by demand draft before the DRT, Coimbatore. The said deposit was made on 7.5.2009. 12. The said application was dismissed by the Recovery Officer on 13.3.2009 on the ground that the valuation of the entire property was only Rs.19.50 lakhs. Sale notice was issued and auction sale was conducted on 22.4.2009. Auction purchaser deposited auction sale amount of Rs.20.20 lakhs by demand draft before the DRT, Coimbatore. The said deposit was made on 7.5.2009. 12. The petitioner ought to have filed an application for redemption under Rule 61 of Schedule-II of Income-tax Act, 1961, under which, if an immovable property has to be sold in execution of the certificate, the defaulter or any person who is affected by such sale is entitled to make an application within 30 days from the date of sale before the Officer to set aside the sale of immovable property on tenable grounds and Clause (b) of the proviso imposes a condition on the applicant that he should deposit the amount recoverable from the defaulter in the execution of the certificate and the said deposit is a pre-condition. The applicability of Rule 61 of the Income-tax Act read with Section 30 of RDDB&FI Act, 1993 is not in dispute and in fact the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2014 (5) LW 381 (M/s. Maan Saravoar Properties Development Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India) upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 60 of Income- tax Act, 1961. In the said judgment it is held that Auction Purchaser does not make a bid for fun of it and it has financial consequences. The said rules are applicable to the RDDB&FI Act, 1993, by virtue of Section 29 of the Act, which reads as follows: 29. Application of certain provisions of Income-tax Act:- The provisions of the Second and Third Schedules to the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Income-tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962, as in force from time to time shall, as far as possible, apply with necessary modifications as if the said provisions and the rules referred to the amount of debt due under this Act instead of to the Income-tax: Provided that any reference under the said provisions and the rules to the Assessee shall be construed as a reference to the defendant under this Act. From the above referred statutory provision it is evident that Schedule-II to Rule 60 or 61 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is bound to be complied with by the judgment debtor, whose property was sold in exercise of powers conferred under the RDDB&FI Act, 1993. 13. In this case, admittedly the petitioner has not filed the application for redemption within 30 days from the proclamation of sale of Schedule-II property and admittedly the proclamation was made on 15.3.2009. Thirty days time was available only upto 14.4.2009. Therefore, I.A.No.82 of 2013 filed on 19.2.2013 is beyond the period permitted under the said rule and the petitioner also failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated time, even though he claims that he has deposited totally a sum of Rs.20 lakhs. 14. The mandatory nature of following the rules for setting aside the sale under RDDB&FI Act, 1993 was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2014 (1) Scale 230 : ( AIR 2014 SC 1078 ) (Sadashiv Prasad Singh v. Harendar Singh) and recognised the right of the Auction Purchaser to retain the property for which sale was confirmed. In the said judgment the Supreme Court relied its earlier judgment reported in (2008) 12 SCC 582 (Janata Textiles v. Tax Recovery Officer) wherein it is held that unless it is proved that some fraud was played while conducting the auction, the same cannot be set aside. In paragraph 13 it is held thus, 13. It is imperative for us, to adjudicate upon the veracity of the sale of the property by way of public auction, made in favour of Sadashiv Prasad Singh on 28.8.2008. It is not a matter of dispute, that the lis in the present controversy was between the Allahabad Bank on the one hand and the partners of M/s. Amar Timber Works, namely, Jagmohan Singh, Payam Shoghi and Dev Kumar Sinha on the other. Sadashiv Prasad Sinha was not a party to the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal or before the Recovery Officer. By an order dated 5.5.2008, the Recovery Officer ordered the sale of the property by way of public auction. On 4.7.2008, the Recovery Officer fixed Rs.12.92 lacs as the reserve price, and also fixed 28.8.2008 as the date of auction. Sadashiv Prasad Sinha was not a party to the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal or before the Recovery Officer. By an order dated 5.5.2008, the Recovery Officer ordered the sale of the property by way of public auction. On 4.7.2008, the Recovery Officer fixed Rs.12.92 lacs as the reserve price, and also fixed 28.8.2008 as the date of auction. At the public auction held on 28.8.2008, Sadashiv Prasad Sinha was the highest bidder, and accordingly, the Recovery Officer ordered the sale of the property in his favour on 28.8.2008. In the absence of any objections, the Recovery Officer confirmed the sale of the property in favour of Sadashiv Prasad Sinha on 22.9.2008. Thereafter possession of the property was also handed over to the auction-purchaser on 11.3.2009. Applying the law declared by this Court in the judgments referred in the foregoing paragraphs irrespective of the merits of the lis between the rival parties, namely, the Allahabad Bank and the partners of M/s. Amar Timber Works, it is not open for anyone to assail the purchase of the property made by Sadashiv Prasad Sinha in the public auction held in furtherance of the order passed by the Recovery Officer on 28.8.2008. In the above view of the matter, especially in the absence of any allegation of fraud or collusion, we are of the view that the High Court clearly erred while setting aside the auction ordered in favour of the auction-purchaser, Sadashiv Prasad Sinha in the impugned order dated 17.5.2010. 15. The Division Bench of this Court in 2012 (3) CTC 724 : (2012 Tax LR 867 (Mad)) (P. Shuyjaath Raheed v. State Bank of India) while considering the scope of Section 29 of the RDDB&FI Act, 1993 read with Second Schedule to Rule 61 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, held that any person, who seeks to set aside the sale of the immovable property being a defaulter in repayment, has to necessarily deposit the amount specified in the proclamation of sale. In the said Division Bench judgment several decisions of the Honble Supreme Court and of this Court have been relied on. 16. In the said Division Bench judgment several decisions of the Honble Supreme Court and of this Court have been relied on. 16. Considering the above judgments as well as the provisions contained in RDDB&FI Act, 1993 read with the procedure contemplated under Rules 60 and 61 of Schedule-II of Income-tax Act, 1961 and the petitioner having not exercised his right to set aside the sale of the property under Section 30 of the Act within the stipulated time, we are of the view that the Auction Purchaser is entitled to have the sale certificate of Schedule-II property and the petitioner is entitled to get refund of the amounts deposited with accrued interest, if any. There is no merit in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. Petitions dismissed.