1978 (4) TMI 78

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0 of 1975 in E.P. No. 96 of 1974 in O.S. No. 3288 of 1969 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. The application before the learned subordinate judge was filed by the Union of India, Income-tax Department, represented by its TRO VI, Madras, for a declaration that the attachment of the properties of the judgment-debtor by M/s. Ganeshlal Bajaj, the first respondent, is void and for raising th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ovides that where a notice has been served on a defaulter under rule 2, the defaulter or his representative in interest shall not be competent to mortgage, charge, lease or otherwise deal with any property belonging to him except with the permission of the TRO, nor shall any civil court issue any process against such property in execution of a decree for the payment of money. The learned counsel ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r in execution of a decree for payment of money after a notice is served on the defaulter under rule 2. In the instant case, the demand notice was served on May 15, 1968, and an attachment also was effected by the income-tax department on April 11, 1969. The properties in dispute were sold on October 8, 1969, by the Tahsildar. However, the sale was set aside on April 17, 1970, because of certain ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0,1969, that is to say, long after the demand notice under r. 2 and the attachment by the department. The suit was decreed on August 23, 1971. On that date the attachment was made absolute. In pursuance of this attachment, the decree-holder instituted the proceedings in execution. The attachment by the decree-holder after the notice dated May 15, 1968, under r. 2 issued by the income-tax departmen....