UNION OF INDIA Vs. GANESH LAL BAJAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision petition against a judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Vellore, dismissing E.A. No. 210 of 1975 in E.P. No. 96 of 1974 in O.S. No. 3288 of 1969 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras.

(2.) THE application before the learned subordinate judge was filed by the Union of India, Income-tax Department, represented by its TRO VI, Madras, for a declaration that the attachment of the properties of the judgment-debtor by M/s. Ganeshlal Bajaj, the first respondent, is void and for raising the attachment. THE officer also prayed for stay of the execution proceedings.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the first respondent contends that when the sale was set aside on April 17, 1970, the attachment effected by the department had also been lifted by virtue of the sale being set aside. I am unable to accept this contention. THE setting aside of the sale has not the effect of vacating the attachment effected by the department. In any event, by reason of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 16, the question whether an attachment was subsisting or not is also irrelevant for the purpose of deciding this case, because 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 on July 20, 1969, that is to say, long after the demand notice under Rule 2 and the attachment by the department. THE suit was decreed on August 23, 1971. On that date the attachment was made absolute. In pursuance of this attachment, the decree-holder instituted the proceedings in execution. THE attachment by the decree-holder after the notice dated May 15, 1968, under Rule 2 issued by the income-tax department is void. THE effect of Rule 16 of Sch. II of the I.T. Act of 1961 is not lost by virtue of the sale being set aside.