| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 432 1970 SLD 432 (1970) 83 ITR 430 |
Delhi High Court
I.A. No. 1092 OF 1970 IN SUIT No. 506 OF 1968, DECEMBER 9, 1970
B.C. MISRA, J
C.K. Daphtari, K. Jayaram and R.N. Dikshit for the Plaintiff. P.S. Khera and A.N. Kirpal for Defendant
I.A. No. 1092 OF 1970 IN SUIT No. 506 OF 1968, DECEMBER 9, 1970
B.C. MISRA, J
C.K. Daphtari, K. Jayaram and R.N. Dikshit for the Plaintiff. P.S. Khera and A.N. Kirpal for Defendant
C.S. Loganathan
v.
P.L. Kapur
Law:
Section:
Section 230A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Restrictions on registration of transfers of immovable properties in certain cases - A suit for recovery of debt filed by plaintiff resulted in a compromise decree whereby defendants would absolutely sell and convey to plantiff certain immovable property - On defendants having failed to executive sale deed, court appointed its Registrar as an officer to execute and register sale deed - Such a sale deed was presented by officer concerned to Sub-Registrar for registration -Sub-Registrar declined to register said deed in absence of tax clearance certificate - Whether although words 'transfer, assign, limit and extinguish' occurring in section 230-A are of a wide amplitude, still, in their context, they should, in order to constitute a reasonable restriction, be construed as confined to cases of voluntary deeds executed by an assessee, and have no application whatever to involuntary acts, resulting in transfer, assignments, limitation or extinguishments of rights in property by force of law or under a decree or order of court - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, Sub-Registrar of Registration should register sale deed executed by Court Registrar without calling for any tax clearance certificate - Held, yes Words & Phrases Words 'transfer, assign, limit and extinguish' occurring in section 230-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. FACTS The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of certain amount on the allegations that the property in dispute, which was owned by defendants Nos. 1 and 2, had been mortgaged by them with defendant No. 3 for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs and that the mortgagee had assigned its rights to the plaintiff and so the plaintiff had become the mortgagee of the said property. The plaintiff had directly advanced to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 a considerable sum of security of some shares as well, and that even after the expiry of the period of mortgage, the defendants had not cleared the debts and so the same be realised by sale of the mortgaged movable as well as immovable properties. The suit resulted in a compromise decree according to which the two defendants would absolutely sell and convey to the plantiff the said…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492