TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appropriate authority the first respondent herein. The writ appellants herein are the transferees who had entered into an agreement to purchase the property. By order dated 23.5.1999, the first respondent herein, in exercise of its powers of preemptive purchase, under Section 269-UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, ordered purchase of a property for a consideration of Rs.27,60,670/-. 2. It is seen that the transferor C.R. Venkatachalam, petitioner in W.P. No. 9793 of 1999, was the owner of the premises at No.3, Krishnamachari Avenue, Adyar, Chennai. The transferees are the writ petitioners in W.P.No.9956 of 1999. The transferor and transferees entered into an agreement to sell and purchase the property for an apparent consideration of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 226 of the Constitution of India, the remedial judicial review could not be equated to a remedy of appeal. The respondents placed reliance on the decisions reported in Devesh Behari Saxena v. Deputy CIT [1994] 208 ITR 637 (All) ; Appropriate Authority v. Smt. Sudha Patil [1999] 235 ITR 118 (SC) ; Ramesh Bhai J. Patel v. Union of India [2001] 247 ITR 182 (SC) ; and Union of India v. Shatabadi Trading and investment P. Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 93 (SC). 5. In the course of the proceedings before this Court, the wife and the daughter of the transferor impleaded themselves seeking a direction to deposit the money due to them in respect of the decree passed at the instance of the wife and daughter against the transferor. 6. This Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The decree was of the year 1998 and the agreement was entered in 1999. Learned Judge pointed out that the wife and the daughter were not paid as per the decree, but then the contention that it was a distress sale could not be accepted and rightly so, the respondent had taken the view that the sale was not a distress sale. Learned Judge also rejected the plea that there was a tenancy in the premises. 7. On the question of jurisdiction raised by the transferee, learned single Judge held that the same could not be sustained that merely because the agreement stipulated a lesser time, it could not be said that Chapter XX-C could not be invoked when the transactions attracted Chapter XX-C. In the circumstances, taking the view that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised any other objection in the course of arguments before this Court. 9. The contentions of the appellants were countered by the learned standing counsel, contending that the transferee, as such, has no locus standi to maintain the writ appeal when the vendor had not preferred any appeal challenging the order of the learned single Judge upholding the order of the appropriate authority. Quite apart, he referred to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and submitted that the learned single Judge, on a consideration of the entire case, had rightly come to the conclusion on every aspect of the matter now projected and consequently prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 10. We agree with the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had no jurisdiction in this matter. Quite apart from this, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, if at all there could be any grievance, it could be only from the vendor who had not raised a dispute. In the circumstances, we do not find any justification in the contention of the appellant transferee. 11. Considering the parameters of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and there being no irrationality in the view of the appropriate authority, as rightly found by the learned single Judge, we do not find any justification to accept the submissions of the appellants herein. In the circumstances, the appeals are dismissed, thereby confirming the order of the learned sing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
