Skip to main content

HC upholds attachment of immovable property transferred after service of recovery notice by Tax Recovery Officer

In D.S. Senthilvel  v. Tax Recovery Officer, the Petitioner had purchased an immovable property after service of a recovery notice by the TRO for recovery of arrears due under the ITL on the seller, but before the date of the attachment of the immovable property by the TRO. The Petitioner had objected to the attachment of the immovable property by the TRO by filing a writ petition to the HC on the ground of his being a bona fide purchaser of the immovable property for adequate consideration.

The HC held that the ITL contains a separate and distinct scheme of provisions for transfer of immovable property before and after the service of the recovery notice by the TRO. The ITL protects a buyer who purchases an immovable property for adequate consideration and without having knowledge of the seller’s default under the ITL, only if the purchase happens before the service of the recovery notice by the TRO. In the present case, because the purchase of the immovable property happened after service of the recovery notice, the Petitioner could not protect the validity of the purchase under the aforesaid provision of the ITL. The HC held that under the ITL, the seller loses competency to transfer immovable property after the service of the recovery notice by the TRO, and can do so only after obtaining the TRO’s permission.

In the present case, because the seller had no competency to transfer the immovable property after service of the recovery notice by the TRO, the HC held that the Petitioner could not have acquired a valid or legal title to the immovable property. The HC upheld the validity of the attachment.

However, the HC quashed the action of the TRO in declaring the transaction of purchase as void, and held that a transaction can be declared void either under the express provisions of the ITL or by a Civil Court.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

Registrar cannot remove trademark from record without notice to trademark holder

In Kleenage Products (India) Private Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, the petitioner had applied for registration of trademark ‘KLITOLIN’ which was accepted and from 1988 to 2009, the said trademark was renewed multiple times. The trademark was due for renewal on August 21, 2009, but the petitioner failed to tender application for renewal.  It was, thereafter, revealed that the trademark is likely to be removed from the register. The petitioner contended that the Registrar of Trademarks (respondent No.1) also failed to issue the requisite mandatory notice in Form O-3 to him (the registered proprietor) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition holding that any such removal can only be possible if prior notice, mandatory under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, has been given Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/removal-registered-trademarks-cant-done-without-giving-prior-notice-registered-proprie...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more