Skip to main content

A charge cannot be enforced against a transferee if he has had no notice of the same

In Sonoma Management Partners Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of Maharashtra, decided on 22nd November, 2016, while relying upon the Supreme Court decision in State of Karnataka v. Shreyas Papers Pvt. Ltd., 2006 (1) SCC 615 the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that no charge can be enforced against a property legitimately purchased for consideration by the transferee if he has had no notice, either actual or constructive, of the charge.

In the instant case, when a defaulter company could not repay the loan taken from the respondent bank, the bank took physical possession of a property belonging to the defaulter company under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and invited offers for sale of the said property. On 1st September, 2010 the petitioners placed their bid for purchasing the property at Rs. 11,00,29,000. Thereafter, a Deed of Conveyance was registered in favour of the petitioners with the Registrar of Assurances on 10th March, 2011. At the time of registration, the petitioners perused the 7/12 extract relating to the property and learnt that there was an encumbrance of Rs.18,38,709 of the Sales Tax Department on the property. The petitioners keeping in mind the magnitude of the investment already made, accepted the conveyance with the encumbrance of the Sales Tax Department. At a later stage, the petitioners were informed by the Sales Tax Department about another claim of the Department amounting to Rs. 28 crores due on the property. In this backdrop, the petitioners filed a petition with the Bombay High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing Sales Tax Department to refrain from asserting any charge on the property.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more