9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (8) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants herein and another, for purchase of a house property bearing door No. 6/104, 10th Main Block, Jaya Nagar, Bangalore, for Rs. 20,00,000. In terms of section 269UC(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the prescribed statement was filed, and on April 5, 1988, an order dated March 28, 1988, under section 269UD(1) was served intimating that the Central Government would purchase the property from the vendors for the consideration shown in the agreement. Hence, challenging the validity of section 269UD, he has filed the writ petition. Reference is also made to other similar writ petitions filed in this court and also in the Supreme Court. Pending disposal of the writ petition, he obtained stay of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t irrespective of the fact whether the fourth respondent herein succeeds in the writ petition or not, the appellants are entitled to get the entire sale consideration from the Central Government. When the owners have not been responsible for the litigation, they cannot be made to suffer. They have no control over the prospective purchaser who had thoughtlessly gone to court. It is not disputed by him that the constitutionality of Chapter XXC of the Act is pending consideration before various High Courts and the Supreme Court. In the event of certain provisions being struck down, the vesting under section 269UD would disappear, and in such event, the owners will have to look to the purchaser for the sale consideration. The Act contemplates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmit a breach of the contract. It would be unwise to subject the Government to part with public funds and thereafter face litigation, and in doing so, it would be spending more funds to succeed in those matters. While entering into the agreement, the appellants having known about the existence of Chapter XXC in the Act, ought to have stipulated terms and conditions which would not involve an order being passed under section 269UD(1). Having entered into an agreement of sale, which is one that cannot be permitted under Chapter XXC of the Act, it is the appellants who will have to be blamed in the manner in which they have stipulated the terms and conditions therein. Therefore, no owner of property can ever ask the Government to pay any por ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
