2025 (1) TMI 329

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a direction for release of the aforesaid property from an attachment issued by the 1st respondent. 2. Petitioners are the decree holders in O.S No. 185/2006 on the files of the Sub Court, Alappuzha. The said suit was filed claiming amounts due from the 2nd respondent. On the date of filing of the suit, an attachment before judgment was obtained under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 [for short "C.P.C], in respect of 6 cents of property. Subsequently, pursuant to mediation, an award was passed as Ext.P1 on 03.04.2007, allowing the petitioners to recover an amount of Rs. 2,15,000/- with 6% interest, from the date of suit from the 1st defendant and the property scheduled therein. Subsequently, execution proceedings were initi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on raised by the petitioners are based upon the alleged bona fide purchase of a part of the property, now under attachment, initiated by the Income Tax Department. Petitioners contend that the property purchased by them cannot be proceeded against by the Income Tax Department for alleged dues of the 2nd respondent. 6. I have heard Sri. Sachithananda Pai, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well Sri. Cyriac Tom, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Jose Joseph, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent. 7. The scheme of the Income Tax Act enables the department to proceed against the property of an assesse for recovery of amounts due. In order to enable the Income Tax Department to proceed with r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....evident that, if the transfer is made for an adequate consideration and without notice of the pendency of the proceedings by the Income Tax Department or without notice of such tax due from the assessee, the transfer cannot be deemed to be void. 9. A glance at the dates involved in the present case is relevant. On 29.11.2006, O.S. No.185/2006 was instituted and an attachment before judgment was obtained. On 03.04.2007, Ext. P1 award was passed creating a charge on the property scheduled in the plaint. Till then, the Income Tax Department had not attached any part of the property of the 2nd respondent. Subsequently, an execution petition was filed and the property was brought for sale on 14.01.2009. By then the Income Tax Department had pro....