AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is before me challenging Annexure-C, a notice dated 9-7-2002. The petitioner is a dealer and he owes some money to the respondents. The respondents initiated recovery proceedings in terms of Annexure-C, dated 9-7-2002. In fact, in response to Annexure-C, the respondent has stated that the petitioner himself owes money to the Bank and no money belonging to the petitioner is with the Bank. With these facts, the petitioner is before me seeking for various prayers.
Heard Sri Atul Krishna Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.L. Sanjeev, learned High Court Government Pleader.
Admittedly, as on today, there remains no amount belonging to the petitioner with the Bank. Respondents are trying to attach the overdraft amount lying in the Bank. This Court in the case of M/s. Karnataka Bank Limited, Durgadbail Branch, Hubli v The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Bangalore and Others, 1998(45) Kar. L.J. 595 (HC), has ruled that overdraft facility cannot form a subject-matter of attachment in terms of Section 14 of the Act. In the given set of circumstances and on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I deem it proper to set aside Annexure-C as on today. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to initiate recovery proceedings in terms of Section 14 in the event of the respondent coming to know that the petitioner''s money is available with the Bank. The petitioner has made over 30% in terms of the interim order. The said 30% is ordered to be adjusted with the pending outstanding of the Department.
Ordered accordingly. No costs.
Sri B.L. Sanjeev, learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks.