K.C. Bhargava and A.N.Gupta, JJ. - (1.) By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the opp. parties may be directed not to attach the personal property of the petitioner and his wife.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel have been heard. Learned Standing Counsel was given time to seek instructions, but no instructions have been received so far by him.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the whereabouts of his son Rohit Tandon are not known for the last four years. His son has no self-acquired property and the entire property belongs to the petitioner. The scooter is also in the name of the wife of the petitioner, who is the registered owner of the same. It appears that a case has been registered against the son of the petitioner under Sections 120-B and 408 I.P.C. at P.S. Hare Street, Calcutta on 4-12-1992 and a warrant of arrest has also been issued by the police of Calcutta. Now the police is going to attach the properties belonging to the petitioner treating as the property of the son of the petitioner. It is further argued that the petitioner has sent a telegram to C.J.M. Lucknow and to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Calcutta and also got published in the newspaper.;