2018 (11) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d notice, it is further mentioned that if they fail to pay the same, action will be taken to attach the property at No.14, Valabai Road, Madurai and Land bearing S.F.No.2792/2 (hereinafter referred to as 'subject property'). 2. W.P.(MD)No.13841 of 2012 is directed against the impugned notice of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.2817/04/A3 dated 18.07.2012, in and by which, the petitioner was informed about the tax arrears and the encumbrance that was made by the Department over the subject property. The petitioner further sought for a direction to direct the first respondent to raise the encumbrance with respect to his undivided 1/4 share, over the subject property. 3. As the issue involved in both the writ petitions runs on a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e partitioned into four equal shares among the petitioner's father (Narayanan Chettiar), petitioner and his two brothers. Therefore, post 11.12.1957, the petitioner's father has 1/4 right over the subject property. According to the petitioner, a partition suit is also pending among the parties. Such being the position, the act of the Department in initiating auction proceedings for the entire property is nothing but encroaching the private rights and therefore, he prays for allowing the present writ petitions by quashing the impugned notices. 6. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has filed a counter affidavit, stating that the Company is in arrears of tax to a tune of Rs. 1,35,99,219/- for the per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd perused the materials placed before this Court. 9. Admittedly, (late) L.Narayanan Chettiar and (late) Saraswathi Narayanan, ie., parents of the petitioner, are the Directors of the Company at the relevant point of time. After their demise, according to the petitioner, he is not involved in the affairs of the Company. According to the petitioner, the subject property was purchased by his father and grandfather, in the name of his father on 08.10.1956 and registered as Document No.5411 of 1956. Thereafter, on 11.12.1957, a partition deed was executed and registered as Document No.1366 of 1958. This Court has perused the partition deed dated 11.12.1957, wherein, it is clearly stated that the properties mentioned therein, including the....