https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27886 A maintainability objection based on representative capacity and lack of notice under Order I Rule 8 CPC failed because no specific defect was pleaded or proved, and the duty to issue notice rested with the court once the matter proceeded as representative litigation. The court also held that settlement deeds executed during pending tax proceedings, without consideration and with intent to defeat or delay creditors, were voidable at the instance of the affected creditor under section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 281 of the Income-tax Act supported the Revenue's challenge. The impugned transfers were therefore ineffective against the Revenue. en-us Mon, 19 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:05:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27886 A maintainability objection based on representative capacity and lack of notice under Order I Rule 8 CPC failed because no specific defect was pleaded or proved, and the duty to issue notice rested with the court once the matter proceeded as representative litigation. The court also held that settlement deeds executed during pending tax proceedings, without consideration and with intent to defeat or delay creditors, were voidable at the instance of the affected creditor under section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 281 of the Income-tax Act supported the Revenue's challenge. The impugned transfers were therefore ineffective against the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 19 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27886