| Case ID |
3cd12776-5b3b-4ef4-809b-a8c70ae023f3 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3394 OF 1975 |
| Decision Date |
Apr 04, 1978 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Civil Court is deprived of the jurisdiction to issue any process against any property of a defaulter in execution of a decree for payment of money after a notice is served on the defaulter under rule 2. The setting aside of the sale did not vacate the attachment effected by the department. The mere issue of a demand notice under rule 2 is sufficient to deprive the Court of the power of issuing any process against the property of a defaulter. The decree-holder's attachment was made long after the demand notice and the attachment by the department. The attachment by the decree-holder after the notice under rule 2 was void. Therefore, the civil revision petition was allowed and the execution proceedings instituted by the decree-holder were stayed. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of specific provisions under the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly rules regarding the attachment of properties of defaulters. The Madras High Court ruled that once a notice is served under rule 2, the Civil Court is stripped of its authority to issue any process concerning the defaulter's properties. The case highlights the legal implications of tax recovery procedures and the jurisdictional boundaries between tax authorities and civil courts. The ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory provisions during tax recovery, ensuring that due process is followed. This decision serves as a precedent in tax law, safeguarding the interests of tax authorities while clarifying the limitations of civil courts in such matters. Keywords such as 'Income-tax Act', 'tax recovery procedures', 'civil court jurisdiction', and 'legal implications of tax law' are crucial for understanding the significance of this ruling in the context of tax law and civil procedure. |
| Court |
Madras High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Union of India, Income-tax Department,
M/s. Ganeshlal Bajaj
|
| Judges |
Suryamurthy, J.
|
| Lawyers |
J. Jayaraman,
K.J. Chandran,
K.A. Abdul Hadi
|
| Petitioners |
J. Jayaraman
|
| Respondents |
K.J. Chandran,
K.A. Abdul Hadi
|
| Citations |
1978 SLD 808,
(1978) 115 ITR 791
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
Rule 2,
Rule 16
|