9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (7) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Royapettah, Madras. It consists of land measuring 3 grounds and 529 square feet and a building with a built up area of 3,000 square feet. The petitioner firm agreed to purchase the same under an agreement dated October 24, 1986, for a total consideration of Rs. 16,25,000 and paid a sum of Rs. 25,000 by way of advance by cheque number 662603 dated October 24, 1986, drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Mylapore, Madras-600 004. There are other conditions contained in the agreement, which are not necessary for our purpose. Pursuant to the agreement, permission was sought for from the appropriate authority, but by the order under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated December 9, 1986, it chose to make a pre-emptive purchase of the property. It is the validity of that order which was challenged in Writ Petition No. 14089 of 1986 (see page 84 supra). As already pointed out, the learned single judge has rejected it. Writ Petition No. 14089 of 1986 was filed on December 22, 1986. There was an interim order passed on December 23, 1986, restraining the respondents from dispossessing respondents Nos. 2 and 3, who are the vendors. This interim order was again modified on January 23, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... balance of Rs. 16,00,000 is to be received by the vendors on execution of the sale deed. The sale deed, however, cannot be executed by them in spite of their willingness to do so because the Central Government is now claiming a statutory right to purchase the property in question. It would therefore be fair and just to direct the Central Government to pay a sum of Rs. 16,00,000 on behalf of the appellants to the Punjab and Sind Bank, Mount Road, Madras-2. Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram appearing for the Department wants this order to be restricted to the facts of this case. She is justified in saying so because we are making this order having regard to the fact that the appellant's liability to the Punjab and Sind Bank is growing every day for no fault of theirs. The Central Government shall forward to the appellants a xerox copy of the receipt issued to them by the Punjab and Sind Bank after the payment is made to the bank on their account. The payment will be within two weeks from today. We also make it clear that in case the original petitioner succeeds in his petition, the petitioner will be liable to pay the amount of Rs. 16,00,000 to the Central Government. Accordingly, the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r own accord by obtaining a direction from the court. Therefore, the case falls within the aforesaid clarification as the possession had been taken over by the appropriate authority and compensation had been paid. On the contrary, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the intending purchaser had immediately challenged the order directing pre-emptive purchase within a week from the date of the order and the rest of the events, viz., delivery of possession by the vendors to the appropriate authority and payment of the balance of consideration amount by the appropriate authority to the vendors, have all taken place, pursuant to the direction issued by this court, that in the absence of such a direction in the light of the interim order of stay passed at the instance of the writ petitioner, it was not at all possible to obtain possession from the vendors and to pay the balance of consideration amount of Rs. 16 lakhs to them by the appropriate authority. The events that have taken place pursuant to the orders of court should not be construed so as to affect the interest of the writ petitioner. In support of this plea, learned counsel has also placed reliance on a d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the judgment in Gautam's case [1993] 199 ITR 530 (SC). In the case of Mass Traders [1993] 202 ITR 741, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has taken a view that the clarification does not cover the case pending on the date the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gautam's case [1993] 199 ITR 530, was delivered. In the facts and circumstances of this case as stated above, we are of the view that we need not go to that extent in this case and hold that the clarification will not apply to cases, which were pending on the date Gautam's case [1993] 199 ITR 530 (SC) was decided. In addition to this, it may also be pointed out that though the Supreme Court has dismissed the S. L. P. filed against the judgment in Mass Traders' case, [1993] 202 ITR 741, it has nevertheless left open all other points decided therein. The decision of a Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition No. 10963 of 1987, dated April 7, 1994 K. K. Anandam Ammal v. Union of India [1995] 212 ITR 9, stands on the facts stated in that case. That was a case in which the writ petition was filed not only after the delivery of possession by the owners of the property pursuant to the order of pre-emptive purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a direction to consider the permission sought for by the intending purchaser and the owner in accordance with law and in the light of the principles enunciated in Gautam's case [1993] 199 ITR 530 (SC). The appellant shall furnish security by way of bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the appropriate authority for a sum of Rs. 16 lakhs within 4 weeks from today. In the event the appropriate authority decides to grant permission for sale in favour of the intending purchaser, the appropriate authority can encash the bank guarantee towards the recovery of the amount paid by it to the vendors. The intending purchaser shall also pay interest on the sum of Rs. 16 lakhs from February, 1988, till the date of the order granting permission for sale at the rate of 12 per cent. within a period of 3 weeks from the date of such order. In the event, the appropriate authority directs pre-emptive purchase of the property, the bank guarantee shall stand cancelled and the appropriate authority shall pay Rs. 25,000 to the intending purchaser-petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Writ Appeal No. 216 of 1994: It is not necessary to consider this case in greater detail, because the judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
