AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.L. Gokhale, C.J.—Heard Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel in support of these appeals. Mr. K. Doraisamy, learned senior
counsel appears for the first respondent and Mr. J. Narayanasamy, learned counsel appears for the second respondent-Income Tax Department.
The first respondent before us has filed Writ Petn. No. 777 of 2009 which is pending on the file of a learned Single Judge of this Court. In that
writ petition, she took out an interim application for stay of further proceedings pursuant to the order of attachment issued by the second
respondent-IT department, which notice had been issued in view of the dues of the appellant herein. The first respondent herein claimed to be the
owner of the property, whereas it is the case of the appellant that they are the owners of the property. Both the parties have filed civil suits in
appropriate courts, though they are pending before different Courts. Mr. K. Doraisamy, learned senior counsel informs that he has filed a transfer
C.M.Ps. before this court to ensure that all those suits are heard by one court. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order
passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein, whereby the learned Single Judge has granted an order
of status quo.
In view of the facts as narrated above, namely that both the parties have filed civil suits for establishing their respective claims vis-a-vis each
other and those suits are yet to be decided, in our view, the attachment should continue so that the interest of the Income Tax Department is not
affected in any manner. At the same time, the Income Tax Department should not proceed to take any further steps until the rights of these two
parties are decided by the Civil Court. It is needless to state that in the event the appellant succeeds in those proceedings, the Income Tax
Department will be free to proceed to take appropriate steps for recovery in respect of the property concerned, viz. Plot No. 896 in 153,
Sunnambu Kolathur .Village/97, Madipakkam-II Village. On the other hand, if the first respondent succeeds, the attachment will have to be
vacated. All these writ appeals are disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
Mr. K. Doraisamy, learned senior counsel for the first respondent, who is the petitioner in the writ petition, states that in view of what is stated
above, nothing further is required to be sought in the writ petition. By consent of the appellant and the first respondent, Writ Petn. No. 777 of
2009 is taken on the Board of this court. Mr. K. Doraisamy seeks leave of this court to withdraw the writ petition. The liberty sought for is granted
and the writ petition is dismissed as having been withdrawn.
However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Misc. Petn. Nos. 1, 2, 1, 1 and 1 of 2009 in the
writ appeals and Misc. Petn. Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of 2009 in the writ petition are closed. We request the Civil court concerned to take up all the
suits for early disposal, as and when they are transferred to it.