696 and 697 of 1992 filed by K.V. Shivakumar and T.N. Umesh.
During pendency of these cases in this Court M s,.
The Appropriate Authority directed that the property be purchased by the Central Government at a discounted value of Rs.
During the pending of this appeal, the Constitution Bench of this Court in C.B. Gautam v. Union of India and Ors.,
The property in companytroversy is a double storied building bearing Nos.
1,50,17,084.
2000 1 SCR 991 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. MOHAPATRA, J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition Civil Nos.
The appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench by judgment dated August 23, 1991.
3849 of 1991 before this Court.
When transferor and the transferee jointly submitted application in the prescribed form to the Appropriate Authority under Section 269 UC of the Act, action for pre emptive purchase of the property was taken by the Appropriate Authority.
13085 13086 of 1996.
The transferor preferred Civil Appeal No.
33470 of 1996 in the High Court of Karnataka seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.11.1996 passed by the Appropriate Authority under Section 269 UD l of the Act and seeking a writ of mandamus to the Chief Commissioner of income Tax, Bangalore to issue No Objection to the petitioner and the proposed transferee since the property in question has revested with the transferor.
The cases are numbered as Transfer Case Nos.
1,55,00,000.
A Certificate of fitness for filing appeal before the Supreme Court was however, granted by the Division Bench.
The proposed transferor and transferee challenged the said order in Writ Petition Nos.
The judgment of the learned single Judge was subject matter of Writ Appeal Nos.
Both the writ petitions were dismissed by the single Judge by the Order dated April 19, 1991.
47,00,000 with interest 15 per cent per annum.
In these cases this Court by Order dated 22.7.1996 issued numberice to the respondents indicating that the matter would be disposed of finally at the numberice stage itself.
22 and 23 of 1998.
The appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the judgment dated 15.2,1996.
By order dated 13th March, 1996, a Bench of three learned judges of this Court allowed the appeal relying on the decision of the Constitution Bench in B. Gautam v. Union of India Others, 93 1 SCC 78.
The writ petitioners preferred Writ Appeal Nos, 1297 and 1318 of 1991 before Division Bench of the High Court.
The appeals arising from the two SLPs and the two Transfer Cases have been tagged together for hearing.
The companytroversy raised in these cases relate to the validity of the pre emptive purchase of a building in the city of Bangalore under Section 269 UE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for short the Act and its sale by the Central Government.
Vidyavathi Kapoor Trust represented by Kamal K. Kapoor filed Writ Petition No.
All the cases were heard together with the companysent of the parties and are being disposed of by this judgment.
20686 of 1991 in the High Court of Karnataka seeking a direction to the Appropriate Authority and the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to evict the tenants from the property ia question by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 269 UE of the Act and for a direction to the Authority to deliver vacant possession of the property to him within a reasonable period alternatively the writ petitioner prayed that in case the Central Government cannot companyply with the demand of the auction pur chaser then it should refund the amount of Rs.
The Authority being prima facie satisfied that the property has been under valued with a view to evade tax initiated action for pre emptive purchase of the property by the Central Government by the Order dated 24th June, 1991.
5614 and 6516 of 1991 before Karnataka High Court.
which was affirmed by the Division Bench of that Court in 194 ITR 593.
20687 of 1991 seeking identical reliefs.
This is the second round of this litigation to this Court.
One T.N. Omesh claiming to be numberinee of the auction purchaser instituted Writ Petition No.
775 to 809 situated at Old Taluk Cutchery Road, Bangalore.
On September 19, 1991, the auction purchaser filed Writ Petition No.
The proposed transferee, M s. Rajatha Trust, represented by its trustee K.V. Shiva Kumar also filed Writ Petition No.
Both the writ petitions were disposed of by the judgment dated 26th March, 1992, rendered by a single Judge, holding, inter alia, that the writ petitioners were number entitled to any relief in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, The learned single Judge held that the auction purchaser was fully companyscious that the property was in occupation of tenants and it would number be possible for the Authority to deliver vacant possession of the property.
The said judgment was challenged before this Court in Special Leave Petition C Nos.
34820 of 1996 in the Karnataka High Court seeking similar reliefs.
13085 86/1996.
