TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vious owner M/s. Wazid Sons Exports Ltd., New Delhi by a registered sale deed dated 23.6.1987. The respondent No. 4 was allegedly in occupation of the said premises as tenant under its earlier owner M/s. Wazid Sons Exports Ltd. and as such he became the tenant of the respondent No. 3 by operation of law. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 decided to enter into fresh terms of tenancy and as such executed a registered lease deed dated 17.7.1987 with respect to the aforesaid disputed plot on a monthly rent of ₹ 10,000 vide Annexure-1. Respondent No. 4 who was only the tenant of respondent No. 3 handed over possession of the disputed premises to respondent No. 3 on 10.4.1997 and respondent No. 3 obtained possession certificate. Hence respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the factory building. It is alleged that the petitioner's factory has been sealed without giving opportunity of hearing. ( 5. ) A counter-affidavit has been filed and we have perused the same. In para 3 (i) it is alleged that the respondent No. 4 M/s. Krisons Electronics System Pvt. Ltd. Company is owned by one family, Its Managing Director, Shri R. K. Surf is husband of respondent No. 3 Smt. Poonam Suri. No other outsider persons are involved in the said company. The respondent No. 3 is the wife of the Managing Director, Ramesh Kumar Suri. The land in question was purchased by respondent No. 3 on behalf of Ramesh Kumar Suri for business purpose as disclosed in the transfer deed 23.7.1987 photo copy of which is Annexure-C.A. 1. Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to avoid payment of tax dues. It was the duty of the petitioner to enquire about any dues on respondent No. 3 or 4 but he did not do so. ( 7. ) On the facts of the case, we find no merit in this petition. It is evident that the whole transaction of sale by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner was fraudulent and collusive and was an attempt to avoid huge tax recovery. ( 8. ) It is well settled that fraud vitiates all proceedings vide decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi, 2004 (54) ALR 400 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Dr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh v. Director of Higher Education, 2003 (6) AWC 5549 : 2003 (52) ALR 185. In these decisions the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and this Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
