2017 (4) TMI 1587

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... proceeding of the third respondent dated 31.12.2014 in Na.Ka.No.192/2014 and quash the same and consequently issue a direction to the third respondent to remove the encumbrance made thereon in respect of the petitioner's property in 316A, 316B, Vittalapuram Village, Ottapidaram Taluk on 28.01.2003 in Doc.No.L1 & L2 of 2003 on the file of Sub Registrar Ottapidaram. 2.Heard, Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 and Mr.V.Pandi, learned Government Advocate for the third respondent. 3.The brief facts that are necessary for the purpose of disposing the above Writ Petition are as follows:- 3(i) The petitioner is an assessee and suffered an order of asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncial year in which the order giving rise to a dem and of any tax, interest, fine, penalty or any other sum, for the recovery of which the immovable property has been attached, has become conclusive under the provisions of Section 245 -I or, as the case may be, final in terms of the provisions of Chapter XX. (4) Where the sale of immovable property is not made in accordance with the provisions of subrule (1), the attachment order in relation to the said property shall be deemed to have been vacated on the expiry of the time of limitation specified under this rule." 5.The learned Counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Noorudin Vs. Tax Recovery Officer, reported in 2001 (171) CTR 7....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ounter affidavit, the facts that were narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ Petition are not disputed. It is the case of the respondents that the property in question was earlier mortgaged by the petitioner to the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Tuticorin and that the petitioner was prohibited from dealing with the property mortgaged in favour of the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited. Hence, the respondent could not proceed with the same. Since, the respondents were prohibited by law from proceeding with the sale, the respondents are entitled to exclude the time during which the respondent could not proceed with the sale of the property. 7.Only on this premise, the respondents wanted this Court to dismiss the writ p....