Home Case Index All Cases Benami Property Benami Property + HC Benami Property - 2018 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 60 - HC - Benami PropertyBenami Transactions - Proposed parties proper and necessary parties to the Writ Petitions - Held that:- The reason, which makes it necessary to make a person, a party to an action, so that he should be bound by the result of the action and question to be settled. Thus, the test would be whether the said party is a necessary or proper party and presence of such party before the Court is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the subject matter. Further, proper party has been explained is a person, whose presence is considered appropriate for effective decision of the case, though no relief may have been claimed by him. A party can be impleaded, if he has a direct interest and a legal interest in the subject matter. In a Writ Petition against the Government, if allegations are made against private parties or the officials, they should be impleaded as respondents. In the cases on hand, the petitioner has made several allegations against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle (I), Chennai, who was the Initiating Officer of the impugned proceedings and rightly he has been impleaded as the second respondent in his personal capacity. However, the petitioner has not impleaded Mr.RR and Archer, though there are several allegations made against them relating to transactions with the petitioner and connecting them with the second respondent. Therefore, it is of the considered view that the impleading parties are proper parties, whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of the question involved in these proceedings. Second respondent's jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice, prohibitory order and impugned attachment order - Held that:- The applicability of the defacto doctrine cannot be made to the present proceedings in an abstract manner, but has to be done bearing in mind the provisions of the Benami Act and in particular Section 24, Section 59 read with Section 2(19) and the notification dated 18.05.2017. If it is done, then the second respondent is not a person, who is the holder of the office, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Bename Prohibition), Chennai and for the purposes of the Benami Act, he could be termed as an usurper or total stranger to the office though not as a Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle (I). Thus, when a person, who has no authority to initiate proceedings under the Benami Act or issue orders of attachment under the Benami Act, does so, the very foundation on which he has done such act collapses and the proceedings have to be held to be wholly without jurisdiction. Thus, for the above reasons, it is held that the second respondent lacked inherent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings as on 19.05.2017 and the impugned notice, the impugned prohibitory order and the order of attachment are held to be without jurisdiction and consequently are liable to be set aside. In the above, question No.(ii) is answered in favour of the petitioner.
|