M.C. Mulajkar vs Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 3 August, 1970
In the said judgment, this Court further held as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)C. Dhanalakshmi Ammal vs Income-Tax Officer, Ii Additional City ... on 18 December, 1956
18. Sri Rajamannar, Chief Justice of Madras High Court speaking for the Bench in C. Chanalakshmi Ammal v. Income-tax Officer, II Additional City Circle II, Kilpauk, Madras after referring to Zamarin of Calicut v. Sitarama ILR 7 Mad 405 and Sampath v. Rajah of Venkatagiri AIR 1931 Mad 51 observed as under :. "We agree with Mr. Nambiar that there is no provision in the Madras Revenue Recovery Act which enables the Collector to attach and sell land not registered in the defaulter's name for arrears of revenue due from the defaulter.
Chogmal Bhandari & Others vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Ii ... on 4 February, 1976
20. The Supreme Court in Chogmal Bhandari v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer II Division, Kurnool held that the Sales tax Authorities under Section 17 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act can only determine the jurisdictional facts and cannot proceed beyond that. The Supreme Court further held as under:
S.K. Bhargava vs The Collector, Chandigarh & Ors on 23 April, 1998
21. The Supreme Court in S.K. Bhargava v. Collector, Chandigarh categorically held that the very use of the words 'determine' and 'sum due' implies that there may be a lis between the parties and they have to be heard before a final conclusion is arrived at by the Managing Director. It is not a mere claim of the Corporation, which is forwarded to the Collector for realization, but it is the 'sum due' as determined by the Managing Director which alone is recoverable. The said determination cannot be done without notice to the alleged defaulter.
Kalimili Radhakrishniah vs The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. on 28 February, 1979
17. This Court in Kalimili Radhakrisnnaiah v. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh held that Section 5 of the Act empowers the Collector or any other officer empowered by him in that behalf to proceed against property belonging to a defaulter alone. It was also held that even assuming for a moment that if a person was in the position of a trustee and the state of a benefciary, it would still not render the sale valid if it is not made in accordance with the requirement of the Act and that the person to whom loan was advanced for sinking the well alone but not a third party can be regarded as the defaulter for the purpose of the Act. This Court further held as follows:
1