Union of India & Anr. v. Jethamal Mohanlal
[Citation -2014-LL-0826-40]

Citation 2014-LL-0826-40
Appellant Name Union of India & Anr.
Respondent Name Jethamal Mohanlal
Court SUPREME COURT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 26/08/2014
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags apparent consideration
Bot Summary: The grievance of the appellants is directed against the order dated 4th march, 2004 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 5872 of 1996. By the impugned order the High Court had allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent(since deceased now represented by his legal representatives) whereby the appellants were directed to pay the apparent consideration with regard to the acquisition of the property in question bearing survey no. Digitally signed by Neeta Sapra Date: 2014.08.28 11:06:31 IST Reason: Subsequent to the order passed by the Bombay High Court, we have been told that the appellants deposited the apparent 2 consideration and the amount was kept in a fixed deposit. It is submitted by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General that the property was encroached upon and that was not known to the appellants when they acquired the property. We may note that the deceased respondent had filed an affidavit in this court on 30th January, 2006 in which it is stated inter alia as under: It is pertinent to note that the answering respondent had even undertaken to extend his cooperation, if 3 necessary, by lending his name as a party-applicant in the execution proceedings, if the Central Government decided to execute the said decree through the process of Court. Needless to say that the legal representatives of the deceased respondent are and will be bound by the assurance given by the learned counsel in this court as also the affidavit filed by the deceased respondent in this court Appeal is disposed of. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Leave granted.


IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23717 of 2004) UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS JETHAMAL MOHANLAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS Respondent(s) ORDER Leave granted. grievance of appellants is directed against order dated 4th march, 2004 passed by Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 5872 of 1996. By impugned order High Court had allowed Writ Petition filed by respondent(since deceased now represented by his legal representatives) whereby appellants were directed to pay apparent consideration with regard to acquisition of property in question bearing survey no. 411/1, plot no. 1A at Mouje Bhosari, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, measuring 4321 Sq. mtrs. property was acquired by appellants on ground that apparent consideration did not reflect correct sale Signature Not Verified consideration. Digitally signed by Neeta Sapra Date: 2014.08.28 11:06:31 IST Reason: Subsequent to order passed by Bombay High Court, we have been told that appellants deposited apparent 2 consideration and amount was kept in fixed deposit. That fixed deposit has since matured and amount has been claimed by respondent/his legal representatives. It is submitted by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General that property was encroached upon and that was not known to appellants when they acquired property. Be as that it may, since respondent/legal representatives have already taken apparent consideration along with interest that has accrued thereon pursuant to order passed by Bombay High Court, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal, since question raised before us is academic. It is pointed out by learned Solicitor General that perhaps physical possession of property has not yet been taken over by appellants. If that is so, appellants may take physical possession of property in accordance with law and learned counsel for respondent/legal representatives have assured us and undertaken to extend cooperation even by legal representatives of deceased respondent in assisting appellants in taking physical possession of property, if necessary by lending their names as party applicant in execution proceedings, in case appellants decide to execute decree which is said to have been passed on 21st October, 1994. We may note that deceased respondent had filed affidavit in this court on 30th January, 2006 in which it is stated inter alia as under: "It is pertinent to note that answering respondent had even undertaken to extend his cooperation, if 3 necessary, by lending his name as party-applicant in execution proceedings, if Central Government decided to execute said decree through process of Court. Hence, considering stand of answering Respondent and position in which he is put into Petitioners are not right and justified in refusing to make payment to answering Respondent." Needless to say that legal representatives of deceased respondent are and will be bound by assurance given by learned counsel in this court as also affidavit filed by deceased respondent in this court Appeal is disposed of. Question of law is kept open. No costs. ...................J (MADAN B. LOKUR) ........................J (C. NAGAPPAN) NEW DELHI AUGUST 26, 2014 4 ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 23717/2004 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04/03/2004 in WP No. 5872/1996 passed by High Court Of Bombay) UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS JETHAMAL MOHANLAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 26/08/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar SG Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das ,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav ,Adv. Mr. Rahul Jain, Adv. Ms. Smitashi Talukadar, Adv. UPON hearing counsel Court made following ORDER Leave granted. Appeal disposed of in terms of signed order. (NEELAM GULATI) (JASWINDER KAUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on file) Union of India & Anr. v. Jethamal Mohanlal
Report Error