https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390584 The Delhi HC held that the exemption from attachment and sale under section 60(1)(ccc) CPC, as applicable to Delhi, had to be construed in the limited context of the relief legislation from which it was derived and could not be stretched to protect the petitioner. Because the property had already entered the recovery process, the demand notice had been served earlier, and the transfer to the petitioner breached the recovery rules and restraint order, the petitioner could not resist attachment or sale. The Court also refused to permit withdrawal of the writ after full hearing and reservation of judgment, holding that a later settlement did not justify reopening the concluded matter. The writ therefore failed and the recovery action remained undisturbed. en-us Thu, 12 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jan 2020 06:56:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390584 The Delhi HC held that the exemption from attachment and sale under section 60(1)(ccc) CPC, as applicable to Delhi, had to be construed in the limited context of the relief legislation from which it was derived and could not be stretched to protect the petitioner. Because the property had already entered the recovery process, the demand notice had been served earlier, and the transfer to the petitioner breached the recovery rules and restraint order, the petitioner could not resist attachment or sale. The Court also refused to permit withdrawal of the writ after full hearing and reservation of judgment, holding that a later settlement did not justify reopening the concluded matter. The writ therefore failed and the recovery action remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 12 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390584