1986 (10) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....suit against respondents Nos. 5 and 6 for realisation of the bank's dues by sale of this property. This court, vide order dated September 6, 1972, passed a preliminary decree against respondents Nos. 5 and 6 for payment of the mortgaged amount with interest thereon and costs of the suit within 6 months of the date of the decree. Since respondents Nos. 5 and 6 failed to pay the decretal amount within six months, the bank moved this court for a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property and this court on May 21, 1973, passed a final decree directing the mortgaged property to be sold and the sale proceeds to be applied for the payment of the decretal amount. An execution application was filed by the petitioner on August 1, 1973, for e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vent, the Tax Recovery Officer had wrongly held that the property belonged to respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 6 was only a benamidar. Learned counsel further submitted that, even otherwise, if it is held that the property was actually held by respondent No. 6 as a benamidar, from the Explanation inserted in the year 1975 to section 222(1) of the Incometax Act, 1961, it was clear that only transfer without consideration prior to June 1, 1973, could be attached by the Tax Recovery Officer. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kapur Chand Shrimal v. TRO [1969] 72 ITR 623. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 and 4 asserted that the notice of demand was sent prior to the mortgage create....