TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has held that the membership card is only a personal privilege granted by the petitioner - Exchange and that no right to that card has ever been transferred to the card holder for the petitioner - Exchange so as to enable it's attachment by the Income Tax Department. So far as security deposit is concerned, the Apex Court has held that the petitioners would have a priority on the security deposits over the Income Tax Department. - WRIT PETITION NO. 2110 OF 1999 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2020 - UJJAL BHUYAN AND MILIND N. JADHAV,JJ. Mr. Arnav Mohanty, Advocate i/by Khaitan Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. A. R. Malhotra, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. PC : 1. Heard Mr. Arnav Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rch 1989 and the impugned prohibitory orders dated 4th February 1987 and 7th March 1990 being Exhibits F-2, G, J-2 hereto; (c) that this Hon ble Court be pleased to declare that the Petitioner is permitted to exercise the right of nomination in respect of the membership right of late Mr. Sumatilal Jamnalal and/or Paresh Sumatilal Karodia in favour of such person as the Petitioner may decide and to apply the consideration received therefor and also to appropriate all other securities placed with the Petitioner by M/s. Sumatilal Jamnalal and which have vested in the Petitioner in accordance with the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Petitioner; (d) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue has preferred Writ Petitions before this court being Writ Petition Nos. 208 and 360 of 2017 which were admitted on 22.03.2017 for hearing. 4. Mr. Arnav Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner agrees with the submissions made by Mr. Malhotra, learned standing counsel Revenue for the Respondents, about disposal of the above writ petitions. 5. Submissions made have been considered. 6. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce below the order passed by this court ( Coram: M.S. SANKLECHA G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.) dated 15.10.2015 in Writ Petition Nos. 215 and 217 of 2003 :- These petitions challenge the prohibitory and attachment orders issued by the Income Tax Department in respect of the income tax dues payable by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounts in excess in the hands of the petitioner stand attached in favour of the Income Tax Department. The defaulting member of the petitioner-Exchange would not have any right over the same. Mr. Banarjee, the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid position. 4. Mr. Malhotra further states that the petitioner- Exchange is entitled to exercise it's lien over the security deposit in accordance with the bylaw 400 of the petitioner -Exchange's By-laws. Mr. Banarjee on instructions, in all fairness, so as to have complete transparency in these matters states that before making payment in terms of by-law 400, petitioner would intimate the manner in which the security deposits would be adjusted to the Deputy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
