Skip to main content

HC upholds attachment of immovable property transferred after service of recovery notice by Tax Recovery Officer

In D.S. Senthilvel  v. Tax Recovery Officer, the Petitioner had purchased an immovable property after service of a recovery notice by the TRO for recovery of arrears due under the ITL on the seller, but before the date of the attachment of the immovable property by the TRO. The Petitioner had objected to the attachment of the immovable property by the TRO by filing a writ petition to the HC on the ground of his being a bona fide purchaser of the immovable property for adequate consideration.

The HC held that the ITL contains a separate and distinct scheme of provisions for transfer of immovable property before and after the service of the recovery notice by the TRO. The ITL protects a buyer who purchases an immovable property for adequate consideration and without having knowledge of the seller’s default under the ITL, only if the purchase happens before the service of the recovery notice by the TRO. In the present case, because the purchase of the immovable property happened after service of the recovery notice, the Petitioner could not protect the validity of the purchase under the aforesaid provision of the ITL. The HC held that under the ITL, the seller loses competency to transfer immovable property after the service of the recovery notice by the TRO, and can do so only after obtaining the TRO’s permission.

In the present case, because the seller had no competency to transfer the immovable property after service of the recovery notice by the TRO, the HC held that the Petitioner could not have acquired a valid or legal title to the immovable property. The HC upheld the validity of the attachment.

However, the HC quashed the action of the TRO in declaring the transaction of purchase as void, and held that a transaction can be declared void either under the express provisions of the ITL or by a Civil Court.

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