9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shares of two of the petitioners Kalyankumar and Senthilkumar, were 1/33 each of the value of Rs. 1,21,212. The share of the petitioner Loganayaki was 4/33 and was of the value of Rs. 4,84,850. The share of the petitioner Parvathavardhini was 3/33 of the value of Rs. 3,63,636. The share of Shanmuganathan was 11/33 and was of the value of Rs. 13,33,333. The share of the petitioner Kanakasabapathy was 13/33 and was of the value of Rs. 15,75,707. The shares of these parties had been declared by the order of the Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, in a partition suit to which the petitioners were parties. Thus, the agreement entered into by all of them was in effect, an agreement entered into by each one of them with the proposed transferee for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that sale is not of any consequence, as by that time, the respective shares in the property had been declared and defined as that of co-owners. The order of the authority in so far as they are concerned must be set aside and is set aside. So far as the shares of Shanmuganathan and Kanagasabapathy are concerned, it is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that tendering of the amounts in respect of those shares, even as admitted in respect of other shares, was not made in accordance with section 269UG of the Income-tax Act. The amount tendered to them by cheque on the 26th was not the whole of the amount required to be paid to them and consequently they refused to receive those cheques. It is the case of the Revenue that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es was less than Rs. 10,00,000, their shares could not have been compulsorily acquired by the authority under Chapter XX-C. The payment of money to them and the acceptance thereof cannot be held against those petitioners, as such, payment was only a consequence of the order passed by the authority. If the order is found to be one without jurisdiction, that order can be set aside at the instance of those petitioners provided they had approached the court in proper time. This writ petition was filed within a short time after possession was taken. Those petitioners by their act of receiving the money could not and did not confer jurisdiction on the authority to acquire their shares in the manner sought to be done under the impugned order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent authority the entire amount received by them together with interest at the rate of 15 percent from the date on which they received the money till the date they refund the money to the respondent authority. After they repay the monies with interest, the authority shall hand over possession of the residence in the same manner as it was subject to reasonable wear and tear between the date of taking possession and the date of re-delivery to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for three months time within which to make the payment. Such time is granted. The petition is allowed. It is made clear that besides the contentions dealt with in this order, learned counsel for the petitioners sought to raise other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
