9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... members (a) Tolaram Lachhiram Chudiwala, (b) Vikas Tolaram Chudiwala, (c) Mohini Tolaram Chudiwala, (d) Sangita Vikas Chudiwala, (e) Venulata Tolaram Chudiwala (then minor), (f) Kushal Vikas Chudiwala. By virtue of this agreement the premises belonging to the said Hindu undivided family admeasuring 400 sq. ft. situated at 195, Kalbadevi Road, 1st Floor, Bombay-400 002, were rented out to the petitioners. The petitioners were to pay a rent of Rs. 5,125 for occupation of the said premises, and the first of such payment was to be made on or before July 31, 1983. The subsequent payments were to be made on or before the last day of each and every succeeding month. Similarly, three other agreements were executed between the petitioners and the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that the transaction of loan agreement, which pertains to the grant of the said loan is totally different from the agreement by which the petitioners were required to pay rent to the said Hindu undivided family (original assessee). He submitted that the petitioners are holding the said amount as garnishee and, therefore, the Revenue is entitled to direct them to pay the said amount to the Revenue towards recovery of the arrears of taxes from the original assessee. He further submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioners but they did not satisfy the concerned officers by cogent and proper legal grounds. He submitted that the petition needs to be dismissed. During the course of submissions advanced, it surfaced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e pleas cannot be permitted to defeat lawful recovery by the Revenue. Hobble Goblin of litigation has to be ignored. The petitioners were offered sufficient opportunity by the Revenue but instead of putting forth proper and satisfactory grounds, the petitioners vexed the Revenue by exchange of letters. Apart from that, the petitioners filed this writ petition quite late and, therefore, the petition is also suffering from laches. Thus, summing up of all, this court comes to the conclusion that the petitioners did not make out a ground for granting a writ of certiorari in their favour. The petitioners to pay the said amount till they are occupying the suit premises from the date of said garnishee notice. Thus, the petition stands dismissed, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
