- (1.) THE petitioner (State Bank of Patiala) agreed to provide financing facilities to Navin Wire Products (Private) Ltd. , Sultanpur Road, Kapur, thala (respondent No. 4), on December 20, 1972, as under. : (i) Cash credit facilities in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000. (ii) Demand drafts purchase facility (under which the petitioner would purchase bills drawn by respondent 4 on its customers) up to Rs. 1,50,000. and (iii) Overdraft facility to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000, and made various advances to respondent 4 on the basis thereof.
(2.) IN order to secure the advances to be taken by respondent 4, Narinder Kumar Anand (respondent 5) equitably mortgaged his land by deposit of title deeds. He was also a partner in the firm, " Messrs. H. L. Anand and Sons, Kapurthala", respondent 6. Income-tax arrears from that firm and from respondent 5 himself were due for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1969-70. The Tax Recovery Officer (respondent 2) sent a letter dated July 21, 1973, to the petitioner's branch at Kapurthala, calling upon it to i produce before him the original title deeds of the property mortgaged with the bank and to inform him about the balance of the loan due from respondent 4 as on June 20, 1973. A reply to that letter was sent by the petitioner-bank's manager on July 24, 1973, a sum of Rs. 3,37,748'35 was due from respondent 4 to the petitioner. On July 30, 1973, the Tax Recovery Officer attached the property of respondent 5, which had been equitably mortgaged with the petitioner-bank and on that date a sum of Rs. 3,18,666. 52 was due from respondent 4 to the petitioner-bank.
(3.) ON September 29, 1973, the petitioner-bank filed objections to the attachment under Rule 11 of the Second Schedule (Procedure for Recovery of Tax) framed under Section 222 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the effect that the land had been mortgaged with the petitioner-bank and the same could not be attached or sold by the Tax Recovery Officer in order to realise the arrears of tax from respondent 5.;