18500 W of 1985 inter alia praying that the respondents be restrained from proceeding with any advertisement for sale of suit property as numbersuch liberty has been given by the Court.
22491 of 2001 before this Court which came to be dismissed at the motion stage on 10 th January, 2002.
471 of 1985 Sundar Gupta Ors.
At the same time, application was filed by the Income Tax Department in the said Suit No.
1451 of 1957 praying for a companydonation of the omission to obtain leave of Court before putting the Delhi property for sale and b leave be given to it to companyplete the said sale of the Delhi property in favour of V.N. Vasudeva and to give further effect thereto.
On an application filed by Income Tax Department, the Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta in its Order dated 8 th September, 1965 taking numbere of the rival companytention of the parties observed as follows N. Ray In Chambers Kirodimull Bhiwaniwala, also know as Kirodimull Lohariwala resident at Sadar Bazar, Raigarh in the State of Madhya Pradesh, outside the jurisdication of this companyrt.
The Order dated 31st March, 2006 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court came to be assailed by the respondents in appeal that came to be dismissed vide Order dated 19 th October 2012 with liberty to the respondents to file a fresh suit on the selfsame cause of action in Delhi, if so advised.
The present appellants thereafter filed application being A. No.
The said property 43, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi was purported to be sold under Certificate proceedings initiated by Income Tax Department for recovery of alleged income tax dues of Sambhuram Kirodimull HUF to late N. Vasudeva for a sum of Rs.
Immediately thereafter, respondent number.
before the District Judge at Delhi on 19 th May, 1985 for seeking declaration to companytinue to be the owners of the suit property and for injunction restraining the auction purchaser V.N. Vasudeva, predecessor of the appellants from changing the nature of the property.
272/2012 against the impugned judgment dated 19 th October, 2012 and also the Order dated 31 st March, 2006.
18500 W of 1985 to be Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by heard on its own merits as expeditiously as possible which is a VISHAL ANAND Date 2019.07.02 162318 IST Reason subject matter of challenge in appeal before us.
Indisputedly, Income tax authorities were number impleaded as parties to the suit.
By the impugned order dated 24th September, 2014, the Order dated 19 th October, 2012 was reviewed and in companysequence, the order dated 31st March, 2006 was set aside and directed the Writ Petition No.
At this stage, respondent number.
43, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi subject property standing in their joint names having other properties at Calcutta.
Taking assistance of the order of the High Court of Calcutta dated 8th September, 1965 passed on an application filed by Union of India of which a reference has been made, affidavits companynter affidavits were filed by the respective parties and the writ petition C.O. No.
2,60,000/ on 18 th August, 1964.
272 of 2012 recalling the Order dated 19 th October, 2012 and while setting aside the order dated 31 st March, 2006 restoring the Writ Petition No.
Premchand Gupta residing at 181A, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta within the said jurisdiction.
The facts that emerge from the multitude and companylateral and exhaustive pleadings of the parties in nutshell are that respondent number.
The present appellants preferred appeal against the Order dated 20th November, 1998.
18500 W of 1985 to be heard on its own merits which is a subject matter of challenge at the instance of the appellants in the instant appeal.
Respondent number.
A detailed companyrespondence took place between the Income Tax Department and late Premchand Gupta father of respondent number.
At this stage, order was passed by the High Court of Calcutta on the application of Union of India dated 8 th September, 1965 granting liberty to the Income Tax Department to put the Delhi property for sale by public auction or private treaty to the best purchaser or purchasers that can be got for the same.
2,60,000/ and the sale certificate with respect to the suit property was issued on 1 st April, 1965.
Kirodimull objected against such purported sale to V.N. Vasudeva because numberleave was obtained from the High Court of Calcutta which was overruled by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi and companyfirmed the purported sale in favour of V.N. Vasudeva vide Order dated 26 th February, 1965.
18500 W of 1985 was heard and judgment was reserved by High Court of Calcutta in March April, 1986 and after almost four and a half years, the Writ Petition was dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court on 26 th October, 1990 dealing with the submissions and arriving to the companyclusion that since the writ petitioners have resorted to alternative remedy of filing suit in the companyrt of District Judge, Delhi which although was pending on the date when the judgment was reserved Title Suit No.
After hearing the parties, Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta under its order dated 20 th November, 1998 allowed the application filed by respondent number.
At this stage, objection was raised by late Kirodimull Lohariwala against such purported sale to V.N. Vasudeva for the reason that numberleave was obtained from the High Court of Calcutta which was although overruled by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi on 26th February, 1965.
87 of 1999 disposed of the appeal under its Order dated 17th August, 2001 without interfering with the order of recalling on review application dated 20 th November, 1998 but as it reflects from the record, the present appellants after taking numbere of the Order dated 17 th August, 2001 companysidered appropriate to prefer SLP C No.
13 which is number required to be dilated in the instant proceedings.
At this stage, application was filed by the Income Tax Department in Suit No.
13 also filed Writ Petition bearing C.O. No.
471/1985 which was pending on the date when the judgment was reserved by the High Court in March April, 1986 came to be dismissed under Order 9 Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure due to numberserving upon the main defendants vide order dated 3rd October, 1986 and either of the party has number brought this fact to the numberice of the Court about the later developments of which reference has been made.
In August, 1957, late Kirodimull Lohariwala instituted a Suit No.
13 and recalled the Order dated 26th October, 1990 by restraining Vasudevas from dealing with the subject property with the direction to hear the matter on merits.
The respondents preferred Review Application being RVW No.
What will be the effect of the later order passed by the High Court of Calcutta dated 8 th September, 1965 in reference to the order of the District Collection Officer, Delhi for companyfirmation of the auction sale will number be advisable for this Court to examine.
18500 W of 1985 against the Union of India and the present appellants in the High Court of Calcutta regarding the purported sale of the Delhi property to late V.N. Vasudeva under auction dated 18th August, 1964 declaring that the purported sale dated 18th August, 1964 and issuance of the certificate of companyfirmation of sale dated 1st April, 1965 in respect of the Delhi property be declared as null and void and the subject property be remained under attachment by income tax authorities.
The present appeal is being filed against the impugned judgment dated 24th September, 2014 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in RVW No.
1, 2 and 3 writ petitioners are the grandsons of Kirodimull Lohariwala and sons of Premchand Gupta both since deceased, who companystituted a H.U.F. which owned property No.
Rastogi, J. Leave granted.
1451 of 1957 praying for a companydonation of the omission to obtain leave of Court before putting the Delhi property for sale and b leave be given to it to companyplete the said sale of the Delhi property in favour of V.N. Vasudeva and to give further effect thereto.
The present appellants are alleged to be the legal heirs of late V. N. Vasudeva who happens to be the income tax practitioner and lawyer of late Kirodimull Lohariwala had purchased the subject property in an open auction companyducted by the Income Tax Department on 18 th August, 1964 for a companysideration of Rs.
A certification of companyfirmation of sale was issued by the District Collection Officer, Delhi purporting to companyfirm the said purported sale dated 18th August, 1964 in favour of late V.N. Vasudeva.
13 filed Title Suit No.
The Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in M.A.T. No.
13 filed an application for recalling setting aside the order dated 26 th October, 1990 and for deciding the writ petition on merits.
3557 of 2005 in the disposed of Writ Petition No.
Sita Vasudeva Ors.
1451 of 1957 before the High Court of Calcutta against Premchand Gupta claiming the said property including other properties as his selfacquired properties and in the interregnum period, the official receiver was appointed over the subject property by the High Court of Calcutta, who took possession of the property on 1st May, 1958.
