Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (7) TMI 40

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing of an order of attachment and service on the defaulter - assessee is not sufficient for constructive notice to the general public, unless proclamation of attachment is publicized in the manner prescribed by law. It is, no doubt correct that the appellants had handed over a copy of the Attachment Warrant to the office of Sub-Registrar of Assurances, albeit it is also a fact that the register recording the attachments was misplaced in April 2004. Further, the sale deeds in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2, namely, Amit Ahuja and Shalini Ahuja were registered by the Sub-Registrar of Assurances on 26.04.2006. It is a need to update and revise Rule 54 to Order XXI of the CPC, as the prescribed modes of publication for proclamation of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng the judgment debtor from transferring or charging the property in any way, and all persons from taking any benefit from such transfer or charge. (1-A) The order shall also require the judgment-debtor to attend Court on a specified date to take notice of the date to be fixed for settling the terms of the proclamation of sale. (2) The order shall be proclaimed at some place on or adjacent to such property by beat of drum or other customary mode, and a copy of the order shall be affixed on a conspicuous part of the property and then upon a conspicuous part of the court house, and also, where the property is land paying revenue to the Government, in the office of the Collector of the district in which the land is situate 525[and, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... another v. Kishan Sarup Sharma (2008) 13 SCC 113 and the decision of this Court in M. Marathachalam Pillai v. Padmavathi Ammal and Others (1971) 3 SCC 878 ,which affirms the decision of the Madras High Court in Padmavathi Ammal v. M. Maruthachalam Pillai Others (1966) 1 MLJ 413 . Mere passing of an order of attachment and service on the defaulter - assessee is not sufficient for constructive notice to the general public, unless proclamation of attachment is publicized in the manner prescribed by law. Rule 54 to Order XXI states that the proclamation is made when (i) a copy of the order is affixed on a conspicuous part of the property; (ii) announcement by beat of drum or any other customary mode is made at the place on or adjacent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... us, that this is a case of substantive, if not complete, omission and non-compliance. Appellants except for making bald statement professing conformity, are unable to give details and particulars of date and the person who had made publication of the proclamation of attachment by way of affixation of the notice on a conspicuous part of the property, by beating of the drums, or by any other customary mode in terms of sub-rule (2) to Rule 54 of Order XXI of the CPC. In the absence of any evidence, except information to the Sub-Registrar of Assurances which aspect has been examined below, the appellants cannot rely on the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 3. It is, no doubt correct that the appellants had hande .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... also examined the agreement of sale dated 01.02.2006, executed by the respondent no. 4 Jagrit Khaitan, the defaulter assessee, in favour of respondent no. 5 - Rajesh Gupta. The agreement mentions payments made by the respondent no. 5 Rajesh Gupta by different cheques from 01.12.2005 till 31.01.2006. We must observe that the appellants, after issuing the Attachment Warrant on 09.03.2004, did not take steps and there was complete inaction for nearly four years. Thus, inspite of payments made by the respondent no. 5 Rajesh Gupta to respondent no. 4 Jagrit Khaitan, the appellants allowed respondent no.4 Jagrit Khaitan to pocket substantial portion of the sale consideration. That apart, no action to proceed with the sale, post the orde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates