Skip to content


Mahesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.M.W.P. No. 46 of 1975
Reported in(1978)7CTR(All)224
AppellantMahesh Chandra
RespondentState of U.P. and ors.
Excerpt:
- interpretation of statutes definition clause: [markandey katju & h.l. dattu, jj] meaning given to an expression in one statute cannot be applied to another statute......that the proclamation for the auction sale of the properties of messrs. shankar flour, rice & oil mills, bareilly should state that the petitioner had an encumbrance of rs. 1,79,500/- against the shanker flour, mills, bareilly, since the proclamation of sale actually drawn up did not mention this encumbrance the petitioner came to this court. in the counter affidavit it has virtually been admitted that in view of sub-clause (c) of clause (2) of order xxi, rule 66 of the code of civil procedure, it was incumbent upon the officer drawing up the proclamation of sale to specify any encumbrance to which the property was liable. there was no dispute that the petitioner did hold an encumbrance as mentioned above. consequently it was incumbent upon the respondents to specify this encumbrance in.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Satish Chandra, J. - The petitioner wanted that the proclamation for the auction sale of the properties of Messrs. Shankar Flour, Rice & Oil Mills, Bareilly should state that the petitioner had an encumbrance of Rs. 1,79,500/- against the Shanker Flour, Mills, Bareilly, Since the proclamation of sale actually drawn up did not mention this encumbrance the petitioner came to this Court. In the counter affidavit it has virtually been admitted that in view of sub-clause (c) of clause (2) of Order XXI, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was incumbent upon the officer drawing up the proclamation of sale to specify any encumbrance to which the property was liable. There was no dispute that the petitioner did hold an encumbrance as mentioned above. Consequently it was incumbent upon the respondents to specify this encumbrance in the proclamation of sale.

2. The proclamation of sale was issued fixing the date of sale as January 20, 1975. That date has already passed. No auction had in fact taken place. Under the circumstances the respondents are directed to specify the petitioners encumbrance as mentioned above in any future proclamation of sale that may be drawn up.

3. The petition is accordingly allowed. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //