9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (11) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re Products (Private) Ltd., Sultanpur Road, Kapurthala (respondent No. 4), on December 20, 1972, as under : (i) Cash credit facilities in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000. (iii) Demand drafts purchase facility (under which the petitioner would purchase bills drawn by respondent 4 on its customers) up to Rs. 1,50,000. and (iii) Overdraft facility to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000, and made various advance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a sum of Rs. 3,37,748.35 was due from respondent 4 to the petitioner. On July 30, 1973, the Tax Recovery Officer attached the property of respondent 5, which had been equitably mortgaged with the petitioner-bank and on that date a sum of Rs. 3,18,666.52 was due, from respondent 4 to the petitioner-bank. On September 29, 1973, the petitioner-bank, filed objections to the attachment under rule 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under rule 2 of the Second Schedule was served on the defaulter, " Messrs. H. L. Anand and Sons", or its partners and, therefore, the bank could not say whether the service of the notice was validly made in accordance with law and whether the attachment, effected on July 30, 1973, could take effect from the date of the service of the notice. It is thus pleaded that principles of natural justice h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay 8, 1971, in accordance with the provisions of rule 51. Under rule 11, the petitioner had to show if it had any interest on that date in the pro perty attached. Admittedly, the petitioner-bank had no interest in the attached property on that date because the said property was mortgaged with it on December 20, 1972. As regards the observance of rules of natural justice, suffice it to say that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice under rule 2 was served, on the defaulter on May 8, 1971, and if the petitioner intended to challenge the regularity or validity of that notice, he should have filed a suit in a civil court, as is provided in rule 11(6) of the Rules. This matter is not a fit one for investigation in a writ petition. Since on the date of attachment, that is, May 8, 1971, the petitioner had admittedly no int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
