The High Court considered a challenge to a notice u/s 226(3) for attachment of joint saving accounts....

The High Court considered a challenge to a notice u/s 226(3) for attachment of joint saving accounts. The petitioners, secondary account holders, argued they were farmers who jointly cultivated land with their uncle and sold crops. They claimed no notice u/s 226(3)(iii) was given before attaching the account. The Court found that since the primary account holder was a defaulter, no separate notice was required for the secondary account holders. The notice must be sent to the defaulter, not joint account holders. The petition was dismissed, suggesting the petitioners seek legal recourse if they disagree with the attachment. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X