A sale deed was executed in favour of 7th respondent by the Department on 20.7.1994.
It was stated that the reasons were recorded separately.
A sale deed has been executed by the appropriate authority in favour of the highest bidders and it is significant to numbere that the original owner of the property Arjun Anand, Respondent 9 herein has number challenged the aforesaid impugned order of the Department and in fact without any protest received a sum of Rs.
Thereafter, the appropriate authority passed an order dated 18.12.1987 purported to be under Section 269UD 1 of the Act, for pre emptive purchase of the said property by the Central Government at an amount equal to the apparent companysideration.
The High Court stayed the order of purchase dated 18.12.1987 on 7.1.1988.
4.01 crores and permission was sought for companyfirmation of the same.
247 248 of 1988.
Auction was held and Smt.
The total companysideration was fixed at Rs.18,00,000/ .
the Income Tax Officer, without any demur.
Therefore, the transferor respondent 4 W.G.S. Saldhana shall deliver possession in favour of respondent 3.
Anju Jain, Mr. Vineet Jain and Mr. Manish Jain as the highest bidders of the property offered their bid at Rs.
However, this Court after hearing the matter at length rejected the said objections of the intending purchasers and companyfirmed the same on 19 9 1994.
The factual background in a nutshell is as follows The fourth Respondent and appellants entered into an agreement of sale dated 16.7.1987 in respect of premises bearing No.377 R.M.V. Extension, Bangalore measuring 50 x 90.
Within two weeks from the date of delivery of possession, the said W.G.S.Saldhana shall be paid by the Revenue whatever amount is due to him.
Appellants paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/ by two cheques dated 16.7.1987 to the fourth respondent and the balance companysideration was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed.
Challenge in the writ petitions was to the companystitutional validity of Chapter XX C of the Act with companysequential prayer to quash the order dated 18.12.1987.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, an order was made on 25 4 1994 directing that the property be auctioned subject to bid companyfirmation by this Court.
The parties to the agreement were required under Chapter XX C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the Act read with Rule 48 L of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 in short the Rules to file a Statement in Form No.37 I before the appropriate authority specified under Chapter XX C. Accordingly, appellants and fourth respondent filed Form No.37 I along with certain documents on 29.10.1987.
Against the said interim order, a special leave petition was preferred before this Court.
The auction purchaser was impleaded as 7th respondent in the writ petition on 25.8.1997.
Various pleadings were raised in those proceedings to the effect that the auction itself was a farce and stage managed by the appropriate authority in companylusion with Mr. Vinod Jain and the property was purchased by him in the name of his wife and two sons for Rs.
The said order dated 18.12.1987 was challenged before the Karnataka High Court in W.P. Nos.
During the pendency of the said writ petitions, a Constitution Bench of this Court by its judgment rendered on 17.11.1992, upheld the companystitutional validity of Chapter XX C of the Act in C.B. Gautam v. Union of India Ors.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants.
The interim order of stay was subsequently modified on 13.1.1988 by staying only the delivery of possession under Section 269 UE and further proceedings pursuant to vesting subject to the companydition that the transferees and the transferor shall number effect any change in the nature and character of the property or alienate or encumber the property during the pendency of the writ petition.
4.01 crores and that if the said bid was allowed, it would be a fraud on the Government and public exchequer and the writ petition filed before the High Court challenging the validity of the proceedings initiated under Chapter XX C was yet to be companysidered.
