IN rHE HIG C URT OF ARIA<A AT BANALOR DATED THIS T 16TH DAY OF JUNE 1998 BEFORE THE HONBLE MflJUSTICE V,K.SINGHAL 1997 BETWEEN: 1 s/s, Streamline Finvest, a prtnrship firm, c/o Manipal Finance corporation Ltd, No.105/105, Shyamkawal, D building (B Wing) B,N,Agarwal market 0 vi_e Pane (East) Mumbai 400 057, rep. y its partrr Mr Kishore Y,Patel 2,M/s, Streamline Finvest (P) Ld,, c/o Manipal Finince corporation Limited, No.105/106, Shyamkamal, /2/ D Building (B wing), B.N.Agarwal Market, Vile pane (East) Mumbai400 057, rep. ty its Director Mr,Kishore Y Patel .,petrs (By Sri Kishore Mallya for petr—1 M/s Cariappa Co for petr2) 1, Chief Commis,ion€r of Income tax, Karnat aka and Goa, ueens road, Bangalore. 2, Govt. of India, rep, by the president of India, Rastrapathi,Bhvan, NEW DELHI, ..,Respondent, (By Sri M.,Seshachala 7 Sri Shi ;ayogiswarny GA for R3) W,P filed u/a 226 of the constitution of India with an affidavit praying to: Calling upon the respondents to produce all the papers and proceedings with regard . , .3 /3/ to the auction held of the said property on 21,8,9$ and after looking into the legality of the said auction quash the auction sale dated 21,8,96 vide Ann,A and the order of the Respondents dated 17,11,97 vide Ann,EE forfeiting the amounts paid by the first petitiorr and etc., W.P coming on for Prly,hg in B group this day, the court made the following: ORDER C : r,by; % c,by: .34I98-99 1997 VJij, ORDeR 16—6—98 Petitioner No.2 Was the auction purchaser an 0 petitioner No.1 is tne Partnersnip firm which has subsequently been formed by the tirectors of petitioner No.2, 1n these petitions, the petitioner s assailed the notice on the ground tnat the (A 1 inexu:es—e.iace forreitec the y on account of non—payment of tne malance asaant, Ihe petitioner summits that the responcents have no rignt Of transfer and there is no proper title for auctioninj the said property. the anount w ion as be collected at tie time of auction is liamle to me refunded, 2. I iave heard the arguments of the I arned counsel appearing for tne parties, 3. Ihe question rag rding title itself mv ives Lvacti; ting )f tects, If a oroper is transferre by an autnority Who has no title then all one proceedings are void but for the declaration to tat effect the prooer coarse is ci her to approach the Civil 0 oart for adjuacation of tne dispute 4. regarainc the title of the property or to approach the responoents, wno may by tnemselves consicer the oojections of tne auction purchaser. in view of the facts and circumstances of this case 0 tne petitioner may n’ suomit a detaiLd representation to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in Karntaka, &nga— lore, within a period of 4 WCCK5 from tooay, wao will hear tne petitioner ano would take into consioertion all the objections raised by tne petitioner herein. It still tne responoents are of the view that the*re having the proper title after hearing the petitioner then they may proceed ano in tht Case the petitioner my approacn trw Civil Court. It the Chief Commissionex is of the view that the Income Lax Lpartment had no right to aàtion the property, then the amount so ollected fron tw petitioner is to rae refunbeo, The question regarding impleacing th petitioner No.1 would also rae considered by tne Commissioner looking to the oroacer interest of the petitioner as well as the revenue, ‘grit Petitions stand isposed of with the aoove bserv ti ns, kvv