9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (10) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m in the Connaught Place branch of the petitioner-bank. Since respondent No. 6 had created an equitable mortgage in favour of the petitioner bank by deposit of title deeds of immovable property belonging to her and situated at S-72, Greater Kailash, New Delhi, the bank filed a suit against respondents Nos. 5 and 6 for realisation of the bank's dues by sale of this property. This court, vide order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner-bank stating therein that a huge demand of income-tax was outstanding against respondent No. 5 and, therefore, the property bearing No. S-72, Greater Kailash, New Delhi, was attached on July 8, 1973, as per Income-tax Certificate Proceedings Rules and that the sale proclamation of the said property had been drawn up and an auction sale had been fixed for December 31, 1973. The petitioner-bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst charge over this property because this property was mortgaged to the petitioner and it was further submitted that, in any event, the Tax Recovery Officer had wrongly held that the property belonged to respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 6 was only a benamidar. Learned counsel further submitted that, even otherwise, if it is held that the property was actually held by respondent No. 6 as a bena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. Learned counsel, however, stated that the Tax Recovery Officer could investigate and find out whether the property belonged to respondent No. 5 or 6 and if he found that in fact it belonged to respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 6 was only a benamidar, he could attach the property. I do not think that for deciding the present petition it is necessary for me to determine the extent of power o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enamidar of respondent No. 5 and, therefore, I find that this finding of the Tax Recovery Officer cannot be sustained. That being the position, it has to be held that the property in question in fact belonged to respondent No. 6 and not to respondent No. 5 and respondents No. 3 and 4 could not attach the same for recovery of income-tax dues of respondent No. 5. Since the petitioner bank had obtain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
