R. S. Moideen v. TRO, Trichur / The Chief CIT, Cochin / Sub Registrar, Anthikad / V. H. Kunjipathu
[Citation -2014-LL-1017-211]

Citation 2014-LL-1017-211
Appellant Name R. S. Moideen
Respondent Name TRO, Trichur / The Chief CIT, Cochin / Sub Registrar, Anthikad / V. H. Kunjipathu
Court HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 17/10/2014
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags attachment order • interim order • sale deed
Bot Summary: 14170 OF 2005 Dated this the 17th October, 2014 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: i) call for the records leading to Exhibit P20 and P21 issued by the 1st respondent and to quash the same by issue of a writ of certiorari ; ii) declare that the auction conducted on 12.05.1995 is illegal and unsustainable as the same was conducted in violation of the rules under second schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961; iii) issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the 3rd respondent from registering Exts. P20 P21 certificates issued by the 1st respondent relating to the property covered by the document Ext.P2, in favour of the 4th respondent; and/or iv) issue any other writ/order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that petitioner in that O.P. has filed an application for restoring the O.P. as, according to him, the O.P. had not become infructuous. This Court called for a copy of the verdict in O.P.7180/95 and the same is made available, which reads as follows: The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Original Petition has become infructuous. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents pointed out that on the strength of an interim order granted by this Court against the attachment and sale of the property of the petitioner , she has sold it to a third party. The respondents will be free to proceed against the petitioner and her property ignoring the action taken by her on the strength of the interim order of this Court. In the said circumstance, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed , without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue other appropriate remedy, if any, in accordance with law.


IN HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/25TH ASWINA, 1936 WP(C).No. 14170 of 2005 (J) PETITIONER : R.S. MOIDEEN, S/O. SAIDALIKUTTY, RAYAM MARAKKAR VEETTIL, IRIMBARANELLOOR, DESOM VENKITANGU VILLAGE, CHAVAKKADU TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT (P.O. ENAMAKKEL). BY ADV. SRI.KMV.PANDALAI RESPONDENTS : 1. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, TRICHUR. 2. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. 3. SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, ANTHIKAD. 4. SMT.V.H. KUNJIPATHU, WIFE AND LEGAL HEIR OF LATE T.A. MOIDEEN THINKICKAL HOUSE, EDATHURUTHY, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SHYSON P. MANGUZHA BY SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-10-2014, COURT ON SAME DAY DELIVERED FOLLOWING: bp WP(C).No. 14170 of 2005 (J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : P1: COPY OF AGREEMENT DT 10/9/1993. P2: COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 2152/1/2002 DT 20/4/2001. P3: COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO. 509/2003 DT 9/10/2003 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, MANALOOR. P4: COPY OF LETTER DT 29/11/2004 ISSUED BY TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, TRICHUR. P5: COPY OF REPLY DT 10/12/2004 TO FIRST RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF NOTICE DT 21/12/2004 ISSUED BY R1. P7: COPY OF LETTER DT 10/01/2005 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1. P8: COPY OF IDENTICAL LETTER DT 10/01/2005 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE FIRST RESPONDENT'S SUPERIOR. P9: COPY OF NOTICE DT 16/5/1990 ISSUED BY R1. P9(A): COPY OF NOTICE DT 16/5/1990 ISSUED BY R1. P9(B): COPY OF NOTICE DT 16/5/1990 ISSUED BY R1. P10: COPY OF ATTACHMENT ORDER IN FORM NO. ITCP 16 ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT DT 3/8/1990. P11: COPY OF ATTACHMENT ORDER IN FORM NO. ITCP 16 ISSUED BY R1 DT 24/11/1994. P12: COPY OF NOTICE TR7(T)/90-91 IN FORM NO. ITCP 17 ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT DT 26/12/1994. P13: COPY OF AUCTION PROCLAMATION DT 10/01/1995 ISSUED BY R1. P14: COPY OF LETTER DT 9/2/1995 ISSUED BY R2. P15: COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, QUILON DT 9/2/1995. P16: COPY OF LETTER DT 23/3/1995 ISSUED BY R1. P17: COPY OF NOTICE NO. TR6(T)/90-91 IN FORM NO. ITCP 17 ISSUED BY R1 DT 24/3/1995. P18: COPY OF PROCLAMATION DT 7/4/2005 ISSUED BY R1 WP(C).NO. 14170 OF 2005 (J) P19: COPY OF LETTER DT 31/3/2005 ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT. P20: COPY OF SALE CONFIRMATION ISSUED BY R1 DT 29/3/2005. P21: COPY OF CERTIFICATE IN FORM NO. ITCP 20 ISSUED BY R1 DT 3/3/2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE bp P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. W.P.(C)No.14170 OF 2005 Dated this 17th October, 2014 JUDGMENT petitioner has approached this Court with following prayers: i) call for records leading to Exhibit P20 and P21 issued by 1st respondent and to quash same by issue of writ of certiorari ; ii) declare that auction conducted on 12.05.1995 is illegal and unsustainable as same was conducted in violation of rules under second schedule to Income Tax Act 1961; iii) issue writ of mandamus forbearing 3rd respondent from registering Exts. P20 & P21 certificates issued by 1st respondent relating to property covered by document Ext.P2, in favour of 4th respondent; and/or iv) issue any other writ/order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in circumstances of case. 2. When matter came up for consideration on 18.05.2005, following order was passed: Standing Counsel for respondents pointed out that issue is covered by W.P.(C)No.14170 OF 2005 2 earlier judgment of this Court in O.P.7180/95 dated 18/2/05. Counsel for petitioner pointed out that petitioner in that O.P. has filed application for restoring O.P. as, according to him, O.P. had not become infructuous. In circumstances, Registry will post this W.P. before same learned Single Judge along with restoration application filed in O.P.7180/95 D. 3. This Court called for copy of verdict in O.P.7180/95 and same is made available, which reads as follows: learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that Original Petition has become infructuous. Accordingly it is dismissed. 2. learned Standing Counsel for respondents pointed out that on strength of interim order granted by this Court against attachment and sale of property of petitioner , she has sold it to third party. It is also submitted that in fact, revenue has conducted auction and part payment has been received from successful bidder 3. act of Court can prejudice none. With dismissal of O.P., W.P.(C)No.14170 OF 2005 3 interim order will also go. Therefore, respondents will be free to proceed against petitioner and her property ignoring action taken by her on strength of interim order of this Court. 4. Heard both sides. This Court finds that in view of judgment in O.P and course and proceedings being pursued by petitioner, this Court is not in position to entertain reliefs sought for. That apart, petitioner had approached this Court only on 10.05.2005 challenging auction conducted by Department on 12.05.1995. In said circumstance, interference is declined and writ petition is dismissed , without prejudice to rights and liberties of petitioner to pursue other appropriate remedy, if any, in accordance with law. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk R. S. Moideen v. TRO, Trichur / Chief CIT, Cochin / Sub Registrar, Anthikad / V. H. Kunjipathu
Report Error