BANK OF RAJASTHAN LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing the Garnishee notice issued against them, which has been sent to the petitioners by revenue authorities on 24-3-1999, as depicted by Annexure Exh. D.

(2.) SOME facts need to be stated for the purpose of unfolding the controversy and the points involved around the said controversy. On 18-7-1983, an agreement was executed between the petitioners on one side, and one HUF having the members (a) Tolaram Lachhiram Chudiwala, (b) Vikas Tolaram Chudiwala, (c) Mohini Tolaram Chudiwala, (d) Sangita Vikas Chudiwala, (e) Venulata Tolaram Chudiwala (then minor), (f) Kushal Vikas Chudiwala. By virtue of this agreement the premises belonging to said HUF admeasuring 400 sq. ft. situated at 195, Kalbadevi Road, 1st floor, Bombay - 400 002 was rented out to the petitioners. Petitioners were to pay rent of Rs. 5,125/- for occupation of the said premises, and first of such payment was to be made on or before 31st day of July 1983. The subsequent payments were to be made on or before last day of each and every succeeding month. Similarly three other agreements were executed between the petitioners and said HUF on the same day. The total rent which was to be paid was Rs. 20,500/- per month. Said amount was paid till Garnishee notice was issued, which was dt. 24-3-1999 by which the petitioners were directed to pay the said amount of Rs. 20,500/- which was to be paid to said HUF, (original assessee ). The petitioners did not pay that amount to revenue and continued communication with the concerned officers by exchange of letters. The petitioners were treated to be "deemed assessee" and that is why the petitioners are coming to this Court with this writ petition by making prayer of appropriate writ.

(3.) SHRI Shukla, Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that in view of the said agreement, the petitioners are entitled to adjust the amount of monthly rent payable to said HUF towards the repayment of loan of Rs. 15 lakhs which petitioners had granted to said HUF by virtue of the agreement dated 6-7-1983. He further submitted that when the petitioners are to recover the said amount by adjusting the amount of rent, the revenue does not have any right whatsoever to direct the petitioners to pay the amount to it. He further submitted that the revenue is totally in error in treating the petitioners as "deemed assessee". He therefore, submitted that Garnishee notice be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.