1997 (4) TMI 41 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of prayer under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
2. Maintainability of the suit due to non-impleadment of other trust members.
3. Statutory bar under sections 269UC, 269UB, and 269UL of the IT Act.
4. Cause of action for specific performance of contract.
5. Duty to obtain necessary certificate from the IT Department.
6. Relevance of the agreement execution and permission for transfer.
7. Jurisdictional and factual errors in rejecting the application.

Analysis:

1. The judgment concerns the rejection of a prayer under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, by the trial court. The defendant, a trust, challenged the rejection of the prayer in a suit for specific performance of a contract regarding certain properties.

2. The defendant contended that the suit was not maintainable as all trust members were not impleaded. However, the court dismissed this contention, leading to the defendant filing a revision petition.

3. The defendant argued a statutory bar under sections 269UC, 269UB, and 269UL of the IT Act, emphasizing the duty to obtain necessary permission from the IT Department before filing the suit. The court examined the provisions and their applicability to the case.

4. The court analyzed the cause of action for specific performance of the contract, noting the plaintiff's grievance regarding the trust's failure to execute the deed as per the agreement, leading to the filing of the suit.

5. The duty to obtain the necessary certificate from the IT Department for executing the deed was a crucial point of contention between the parties, with the defendant asserting that the suit should be non-suited for failure to secure the required permission.

6. The relevance of the agreement execution and permission for transfer was debated, with the plaintiff arguing that the trust's admission of the agreement implied a duty to obtain IT Department permission, while the defendant raised objections based on statutory provisions.

7. Ultimately, the court found no jurisdictional or factual errors in the trial court's rejection of the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The revisional application was dismissed, and the petitioner's prayer for a stay of the order was also rejected.