The Provisional Attachment Order Has Been Challenged On Theground That In Regard To The Property In Question An Interiminjunction Has Been Granted By Civil Judg v. And Not Tenable

Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4945 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ganesh Dutt Mishra Respondent :- Union Of India , Ministry Of Finance Income Tax Deptt. , Delhi And OthersCounsel for Petitioner :- Bhoopal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Kushagra Dikshit Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J. Memo of appearance has been filed by Shri NeeravChitravanshi, Advocate on behalf of the respondent nos.2, 4&5. Heard, Shri Bhoopal Singh, learned counsel for the petitionerand Shri Neerav Chitravanshi alonwith Kushagra Dikshit,learned counsel for the respondents nos.2, 4 and 5. This petition has been filed challenging the provisionalattachment order dated 11.04.2023 passed under Section 24(3)of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988issued by the respondent no.5/ Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax, DCIT (BPU) Lucknow. A further prayer has beenmade for a direction to conclude the proceeding in pursuance ofthe show cause notice dated 11.04.2023 issued by therespondent no.5 within a period as fixed by this court. Admittedly, no reply to the show cause notice has beensubmitted till date. Even otherwise, the decision in pursuance ofthe notice is to be taken within a period of 90 days underSection 24(4) of the Act and the said period has still notexpired. The provisional attachment order has been challenged on theground that in regard to the property in question an interiminjunction has been granted by Civil Judge, Sr. Division,Ghazipur in Regular Suit No.441 of 2018; Ram Naresh Rai andOthers Vs. Ganeshdatt Mishra and others. The civil suit hasbeen filed by one Ram Naresh Rai and others against thepetitioner and others for prohibition and not to interfere in theownership and possession of the plaintiffs therein. Interiminjunction is only to the effect that the said property would notbe transferred in any manner. The respondent no.5 isdepartment and not a party in the said suit. Therefore, thecontention of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived In view of above, this Court is of the view that this petition hasbeen filed on misconceived and baseless grounds which isliable to be dismissed. Dismissed accordingly. ............ .. ...(Jyotsna Sharma,J.)(Rajnish Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 9.6.2023Haseen U.