1992 (9) TMI 41

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, Bombay, by which the objections raised by the petitioner to the validity of the attachment on the said flat were held to be without substance. The short facts, relevant for disposal of this writ petition, need be stated. The income-tax authorities levied an attachment on flat No. 71, in Zenia Abad Building, owned by a co-operative society formed of the individual flat owners therein. Although the said flat was standing in the name of one Ravichandran at the material time, the income-tax authorities levied attachment on this flat on the footing that the flat really belonged to one Loganathan, who was a defaulter to income-tax, and that Ravichandran in whose name the flat stood in the records of the co-operative society was merely a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... agreement dated June 29, 1982, the petitioner was allotted the said flat No. 71 in the said building upon payment of a consideration of Rs. 2,25,000. On or about February 17, 1987, another notice of attachment was pasted on the premises of the said society. The petitioner addressed letter dated March 6, 1987, through his solicitors, objecting to the attachment of the flat and raised a number of grounds in support of his contention that the attachment was invalid and that he had full and clear title to the property in question. In the ultimate paragraph of the said letter, the petitioner called upon the Tax Recovery Officer to give him personal hearing before proceeding further in the matter. It is not disputed by the first respondent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d for the Department that the petitioner had no such right as on the date of the attachment order, as the petitioner, for the first time, obtained interest in the property in question only in the year 1981, while the notice under rule 2 of the Second Schedule was issued in December, 1976. The provisions of rule 11 are substantially the same as the powers of an executing court under Order 21, rule 58, of the Code of Civil Procedure (see, in this connection, Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade (No. 2) v. TRO [1989] 177 ITR 176 (Bom)). This court has, in Jagjivan Dhondiram Kirad v. Gopal Vinayak Joshi, AIR 1955 Bom 397, taken the view that the right of objecting to an attachment is available not only to the person who had interest in the property at t....