TMI Blog1981 (1) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in arrears of income-tax to be paid for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1970-71 and 1971-72 to 1972-73 to the tune of Rs. 18,851 including penalty. The first respondent obtained a decree against the 2nd respondent in O. S. No. 228 of 1972 on the file of the Munsiff, Hubli, for the recovery of a certain sum. This decree was executed in Execution Case No. 18 of 1974 on the file of the 1st Addl. Munsiff, Hubli. In that execution, the aforesaid vehicle in question belonging to the 2nd respondent was sold in the court auction on April 4, 1975, for Rs. 16,000. One Mr. Ganisab, Bellary, was the auction-purchaser. There was also another suit filed by one P. P. Mane being Original Suit No. 9 of 1972 in the court of the Munsiff at Hubli against the 2nd respondent. That suit also ended in a decree for the recovery of a certain sum. The execution of that decree also was taken out in Execution Case No. 330 of 1972 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Hubli. During the pendency of Execution Case No. 330 of 1972, on the file of the Principal Munsiff Hubli, the Tax Recovery Officer, Dharwar, had served a notice on the 2nd respondent under r. 2 of Sch. II to the I.T. Act. It is also releva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be paid to the petitioner-applicant in preference to all other individual creditors or decree-holders. The learned Munsiff was of the opinion that Ex. P-1 was sent to the Court of the Principal Munsiff, wherein Execution Case No. 18 of 1974 was not pending; therefore, it was of no consequence; that an intimation sent to the Principal Munsiff's Court did not amount to an intimation to the 1st Addl. Munsiff Court. Regarding the intimation sent as per Ex. P-4, it was held that the said intimation was received by the 1st Addl. Munsiff after the order was passed on April 4, 1975, entering satisfaction of the decree and as such, even though the amount had not been withdrawn by the decreeholder on the date of receipt of Form No. ITCP 10, such an amount could not be said to be an amount in the custody of the court because the court had already, directed the payment of the amount to the, decree-holder. Therefore, the learned Munsiff has directed that the remaining amount only be paid to the TRO. In this civil revision petition, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that when once a notice under r. 2 of Sch. II of the I.T. Act, was served on a defaulter, he was not competent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Principal Munsiff, Hubli, on August 10, 1972; therefore, as required by the said rule, the court was required to hold the vehicle subject to further orders of the TRO. The reasoning of the learned munsiff, that the intimation sent to the Court of the Principal Munsiff, on August 10, 1972, as per Form No. ITCP 10 did not amount to an intimation to the 1st Addl. Munsiff, is not correct. The Court of the Munsiff at Hubli was only one. There were more than one Munsiff appointed to that court under s. 8 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964. Where more than one Munsiff is appointed to a Munsiff's court, one of them is appointed as the principal Munsiff and the others as Addl. Munsiffs for the purpose of distribution of work as provided by s. 9 of the aforesaid Act. But, all of them are the Munsiffs of the same court to which they are appointed and exercise all or any of the powers conferred on such court (See s. 9(2) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964). Merely because they sit in different court halls and conduct proceedings, each Munsiff does not constitute a different court by himself. Therefore, the intimation sent to the principal munsiff did amount to an intimation s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tax Recovery Officer by whom the notice is issued: Provided that, where such property is in the custody of a court, any question of title or priority arising between the Income-tax Officer and any other person, not being the defaulter, claiming to be interested in such property by virtue of any assignment, attachment or otherwise, shall be determined by such court." From r. 16, it is clear that when once a defaulter is served with the notice under r. 2 of the Rules, (a) neither the defaulter nor his representative-in-interest is competent to mortgage, charge, lease or otherwise deal with all or any of the properties belonging to the defaulter except with the permission of the TRO; (b) the civil court also is prevented from issuing any process against the property of the defaulter in execution of a decree for the payment of money; (c) in case, the TRO effects attachment under the Schedule, any private transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein and any payment to the defaulter of any debt, dividend or other moneys contrary to such attachment, shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment. Rule 31 of the Rules deals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h August, 1972, was in the custody of the court, nevertheless, r. 16 thereof was applicable, as the notice under r. 2 of the Rules had been served on the defaulter on March 24, 1972, itself. Even otherwise, for the operation of r. 16 of the Rules, it is not relevant whether the property of the defaulter is in the custody of the court or not. Rule 16 of the Rules becomes operative as soon as the notice as per r. 2 of the Rules is served on the defaulter. In this case, not only the defaulter was served with the notice on 24th March, 1972, under r. 2, but the notice for attachment was also sent to the court which was received on August 10, 1972, under r. 31 of the Rules. Thus, the court also became aware of the fact that the judgment-debtor, who was the owner of the, vehicle in question, was a defaulter and the notice as per r. 2 of the Rules had been served on him, and the vehicle in question was attached for the recovery of the arrears of income-tax and, as such, the court was to hold it subject to further orders from the TRO. In spite of this, the vehicle in question was sold on April 4, 1975, by the First Addl. Munsiff, Hubli. The sale was clearly without the authority of law b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
