9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per the consent decree it is established that she had only 50 per cent. share in the flat in question, the purported sale by Damayanti was invalid and consequently the purchase order passed by the Appropriate Authority on February 23, 1993, cannot be sustained. - 1255 of 1993 - - - Dated:- 8-12-2008 - P. B. MAJ MU DAR and J. P. DEVADHAR JJ. Faroq Irani with Ashish Kamath, Ranjit Shetty, Shailiesh Poria instructed by Hariani and Co. for the petitioners. R. Ashokan for the respondents. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by 1. J. P. DEVA DHA R J .-This petition is filed to challenge the order dated February 23, 1993, passed by the Appropriate Authority under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... November 28,1989, is null and void. 4. By an order dated February 1,1990, the Appropriate Authority purported to purchase the flat in question under Chapter XX-C of the said Act. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 441 of 1990 in this court. By an order dated January 16, 1992, the said writ petition was allowed by setting aside the purchase order dated February 1,1990, and the matter was remitted for de novo consideration in the light of the decision of the apex court in the case of C. B. Gautain v. Union of India reported in [1993] 199 ITR530. 5. Thereafter, the Appropriate Authority issued fresh show-cause notice and passed the impugned order on February 23,1993, for compulsory purchase of the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tisfy ourselves that the decree in terms of the consent terms were not obtained fraudulently. From the documents annexed to the petition, it is clear that Dilip Bhatia had 50 per cent, share in the flat in question and the consent terms were arrived at after hotly contesting the matter and after paying 50 per cent. of the amount which Mrs. Damayanti Bhatia was entitled to under the memorandum of understanding. 11. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, Dilip Bhatia, who claims to be the co-owner of the flat in question, was admittedly in possession of the fiat in question on the date on which Damayanti Bhatia having 50 per cent. share in the flat in question had purported to sell the flat in question. Since Damayanti Bhatia had no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
