TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 69UC and sub-section (2) of section 269UL of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and to quash the same. The second respondent instituted a suit, C. S. No. 1291 of 1981 on the file of the High Court of Bombay against one A. B. Ananthakrishnan, the father of the petitioner herein, for a sum of Rs. 7.40 lakhs and obtained decree on September 7, 1981. For the purpose of execution of the said decree, the decree was transferred to the High Court at Madras and numbered as Execution Petition No. 73 of 1981 on the file of the High Court at Madras in C. S. No. 1291 of 1981 (High Court at Bombay). During the pendency of the said execution petition, the said Ananthakrishnan died on January 22, 1982, and, con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ution including settlement of proclamation, etc., in other words, the execution petition could be continued before the learned single judge on the original side from the stage at which the matter stood then. With these observations, the writ appeals were disposed of. In the meantime, the decree-holder appears to have filed Application No. 686 of 1989 in Execution Petition No. 73 of 1981 to fix a date for the sale of the property in Execution Petition No. 73 of 1981 through M/s. Murray and Co., on Sale Proclamation NO. 4 of 1983. The learned single judge of this court, by order dated February 15, 1989, after considering all the contentions put forward by both sides, directed the official referee to advertise the sale by inserting advertise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d amount shall be handed over to the second respondent by the Registrar of this court by a crossed a/c. payee D. D. in favour of the second respondent within week from today. The condition regarding furnishing of a bank guarantee is deleted. 3. The balance amount of Rs. 8 lakhs shall be paid by the petitioner to the second respondent in two instalments of Rs. 4 lakhs each on or before April 30, 1990, and June 30, 1990, respectively, by way of crossed a/c. payee D. D. in favour of the second respondent. 4. In the event of any default, the special leave petition will be dismissed without reference to the court. " It appears that the petitioner has not complied with the directions of this order. It is in these circumstances that the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. It is also stated that the immovable property of the judgment-debtor cannot be sold or transferred in execution of a decree without the intervention of the Central Government's option to buy such property in the event of exercising their option to purchase the property. Mr. R. Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that, in view of the restrictions contained in section 269UC and section 269UL in Chapter XX-C of the Act, the second respondent herein who is the decree-holder in E. P. No. 73 of 1981 cannot bring the immovable property belonging to the petitioner who is the judgment-debtor to sale by auction pursuant to the orders passed under the relevant provisions of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code relating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion (2) of section 269UC of the Act provides that the agreement shall be reduced to writing in the form of a statement by each of the parties to such transfer or by any of the parties to such transfer acting on behalf of himself and on behalf of the other parties. It may be relevant to consider section 269UL of the Act which provides that, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no registering officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), shall register any document which purports to transfer immovable property exceeding the value prescribed under section 269UC unless a certificate from the appropriate authority that it has no objection to the transfer of such property for an amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner cannot have any apprehension with reference to the non-compliance with the provisions contained in Chapter XX-C of the Act. On considering the provisions contained in section 269UC of the Act, it is hardly possible to follow the procedure prescribed in Chapter XX-C of the Act in so far as the court auction sale is concerned. While it is so, section 269UC of the Act, as it is, cannot be made applicable in so far as the court auction sale is concerned and section 269UL of the Act also will not apply in so far as the court auction sale is concerned. It is in these circumstances that the contention put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be said to be sustainable. Having regard to the chequered career of the case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
