9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8,57,000. It is stated that thereafter the deceased Khamruddin refused to execute the sale deed and therefore the plaintiff instituted original suit O. S. No. 10743 of 1987 for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the property and that suit came to be dismissed with an observation that the plaintiff could as well file a suit for specific performance. It is thereafter that the plaintiff instituted O. S. No. 4305 of 1989 for specific performance of the contract based on the said agreement dated April 2, 1987. After contest the suit came to be decreed on June 8, 1994. It would reveal that thereafter an application for setting aside the decree was filed in Miscellaneous Case No. 455 of 1994 and that application was dismissed on January 17, 1996. Aggrieved, a revision petition was filed before this court in C.R.P. No. 313 of 1996 and on February 14, 1996, the court declined to admit it. It is also seen from the records that thereafter the legal representatives filed a regular first appeal in R. F. A. No. 396 of 1996 against the judgment and decree dated June 8, 1994, in O. S. No. 4306 of 1989 and that appeal was dismissed on November 6, 1996. It is thereafter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was made applicable to Bangalore city with effect from October 1, 1987. The principal contention of Sri Rama Rao, learned counsel, is that the court in making the order in revision has ignored the decision of the apex court in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530 and that in itself is a ground for reviewing the order. In elaborating his arguments he contended that the sale price shown in the agreement is far below the market value and that has been shown for the purpose of not only avoiding the stamp duty but also to avoid incidentally other liabilities under the Income-tax Act and other various Acts. In support of his arguments that overlooking a binding decision of the Supreme Court is a ground for review of the order or judgment of a court, relied on the decision of this court in Selection Committee for Admission to the Medical and Dental College v. M. P. Nagaraj [1972] AIR 1972 Mys 44; [1971] 2 Mys LJ 325. Per contra, Sri G. B. Shantaraj, learned senior counsel for the respondent, contended that there are absolutely no grounds for reviewing the order, neither is there any mistake of law nor fact apparent on the face of the record and as such calls for no re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0. First I must say that this decision was not brought to my notice by either of the learned advocates for the parties while hearing the arguments, may be for the reason that it did not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case for the reasons which I would presently state. What has been considered by the apex court in C. B. Gautam's case [1993] 199 ITR 530 is in a case where Form No. 37-I is filed both by the seller and the purchaser, the Appropriate Authority is required to notify them and hear them before making an order under section 269UD of the Act. In answering that point, the apex court has said that if the Appropriate Authority is satisfied that the apparent consideration shown in the statement in Form No. 37-I is less than the fair market value, the Appropriate Authority before making the order under section 269UD, is required to notify both the seller and the purchaser, hear them and only then to proceed to make the order. Further it is stated that in satisfying whether there is undervaluation, it should add up 15 per cent. to the apparent consideration and see whether it falls short of the fair market value. However, it is stated that it is a rebuttable p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion acting on behalf of himself and on behalf of the other parties. (4) Where it is found that the statement referred to in sub-section (2) is defective, the Appropriate Authority may intimate the defect to the parties concerned and give them an opportunity to rectify the defect within a period of fifteen days from the date of such intimation or within such further period which, on an application made in this behalf, the Appropriate Authority may, in its discretion, allow and if the defect is not rectified within the said period of fifteen days or, as the case may be, the further period so allowed, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this chapter, the statement shall be deemed never to have been furnished." Rule 48K reads thus : "48K. Value of immovable property.--The value of any immovable property for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 269UC shall be the apparent consideration of that property exceeding ten lakh rupees." (as it stood before an amendment on August 1, 1995). Rule 48L(1) and (2)(a) read thus: "48L. Statement to be furnished under section 269UC(3).--(1) The statement required to be furnished to the Appropriate Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, they cannot be heard to say that there is undervaluation and the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of section 269UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question that came up for consideration before the apex court is totally different and more so the apex court has declared that even when the Appropriate Authority is satisfied that the value shown in the agreement is less than the fair market value, an opportunity should be given to the parties to rebut the said presumption. I am therefore of the considered view that the decision in C. B. Gautam's case [1993] 199 ITR 530, neither applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case nor there was any occasion for this court to ignore it in making the order in revision on March 22, 2000. 1 may also state with all humility at my command that this court or for that matter any other court cannot afford to ignore the judgment of the Supreme Court which is directly on the point, more importantly when it is brought to its notice at the hearing, in view of article 141 of the Constitution of India. No other substantial ground is urged warranting review of the order dated March 22, 2000. Assuming that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
