9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stranger to the said notices, and the writ petition, filed by a stranger or a person not named in the notices, should not have been entertained. It is well settled law that while invoking equity jurisdiction of this Court, the bonafides of the petitioner approaching the Court is to be considered and even if the law may be, to some extent, in favour of the petitioner yet, if the bonafides of the petitioner himself is doubtful or the petitioner has not come with clean hands, meaning thereby, the equity is not in favour of the petitioner, this Court will always refuse to exercise its extraordinarily discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of such petitioner. In the facts of this case, we are of the firm view that no discretion ought to have been exercised in favour of the writ petitioner whose bonafide cannot be ascertained and as such, the order of the writ Court allowing the writ petition and quashing the notice dated 3-3-2006 at the behest of the writ petitioner-Bhishma Pithamaha, is liable to be set aside. - WA No. 715 of 2009 (T-IT) - - - Dated:- 11-8-2015 - Vineet Saran And B. Manohar, JJ. For the Petitioner : Sri K V Ara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tedly, the said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and the appeal against the said judgment is pending before the Appellate Court. Although there have been several other suits and writ petitions filed by the petitioner and other parties with regard to the properties of the Math, the details of the same would not be relevant for the purpose of this case, but the filing and pendency of such cases would only go to show that there were disputes pending with regard to the properties in question. 5. What is also relevant to mention is that the writ petitioner-Bhishma Pithamaha had never filed his return of income till 6-1-2003, on which date he filed returns of income together for six assessment years comprising of the assessment years 1997-98 to 2002- 03. In the said returns, it was for the first time that before the Income Tax Authorities the properties in question were declared by the writ petitioner, to be his properties. It was only after 2003, the petitioner- Bhishma Pithamaha started selling his properties through his General Power of Attorney holder Ramajanam. The properties which were sold were also the properties with regard to which the suit for declaration had been file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me merely on the basis that the said Ramajanam is the power of attorney holder of the writ petitioner. The Power of Attorney holder can always have his own accounts in which he may be having his own money as well as, may be, from the proceeds of the sale made on behalf of the writ petitioner, whose power of attorney Ramajanam holds. 9. Several issues have been considered by the writ Court on merits but the issue of the writ petitioner- Bhishma Pithamaha challenging the notices to the Banks/Ramajanam goes to the root of the matter. All the notices dated 3-3-2006 have been issued under Section 226(3) of the Act. But since in our view, the writ petitioner-Bhishma Pithamaha could not be said to be a party concerned, as the notices were not relating to his account or addressed to him, the merits of the same need not have been considered, especially when the properties, which had been sold, were already attached by the Income Tax Department towards income tax dues of the Math nearly three decades back. 10. It is noteworthy that the attachment order of the properties of the Math, which are now being claimed by the writ petitioner as his properties, was challenged by the writ petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority or Court of law. 13. As per the own case of the writ petitioner, this High Court in W.P.No.13170/1999, clearly held that the question of ownership of the properties would be a purely civil matter and if the petitioner (Bhishma Pithamaha) has any right over any part of the properties, he can challenge the same in any proceedings in a Civil Court. On the contrary, the writ petitioner had filed his claim over the properties in the Civil Court, which suit has admittedly been dismissed. As such, we do not find any concluded right of the petitioner over the properties in question. 14. Learned counsel for writ petitioner-respondent has vehemently submitted that one Original Suit No.758/2005 was filed by the Income Tax Department against the writ petitioner, his Power of Attorney Ramajanam and the Math praying for a declaration of orders of attachment dated 13-09-1995, 03-05-1995 and 05-01-2003 issued by the Tax Recovery Officer, Mysuru in respect of the schedule properties in the suit as absolute and binding on the defendants. It is contended that since the said suit filed by the Department has been dismissed by the Trial Court on 19-08-2013, the claim of the Department with r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
