( 1 ) THIS rule challenges the validity of certain notices issued by the-respondent-income-tax Officer on the Union Bank of India Ltd. , respondent No. 4, and Messrs. Andrew Yule and Company Ltd. , respondent No. 5, directing-them to pay to the respondent-Income-tax Officer any amount due from them or held by them for or on account of the petitioner to meet the tax liability of a firm called Messrs. Dunichand Sons and Company. The rule was issued on the 30th April, 1968, calling upon the respondents, the Income-tax Officer, "k" Ward, District 1 (1), Calcutta, the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal III, Calcutta, and the Union of India to show cause why the aforesaid notices should not be quashed, and the said respondents restrained from giving any effect to the impugned notices.

( 2 ) THE facts as alleged in the petition are shortly as follows: Under a deed of partnership dated the 24th July, 1960, and registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, one Bimala Devi Rateria, the wife of Jaidayal Rateria, and one Krishnakanta Rateria, wife of Dewan Chand Rateria, agreed to carry on business with equal shares on and from the aforesaid date under the