Skip to main content

Dues to Government Should be Mentioned in Encumbrance Certificate: High Court

The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) to ensure that electricity bill dues of premises were reflected in encumbrance certificate issued by the Registration Department as and when a purchaser approached the property.

Wherever an electricity bill was due for a premises in question, TNEB should immeidately communicate the same to the Inspector General of Registration who, in turn, shall communicate the encumrance of the property in question to the Sub-Registrar concerned without delay and ensure it was reflected in the encumbrance certificate, Justice R Mahadevan said.

He gave the direction while allowing petitions filed by a school and two dargahs seeking to direct to give fresh electricity connection to their property in the city, which was disconnected for non-payment of dues accumulated over a period of 11 years.

Assistant Engineer of TNEB had rejected the plea for fresh connection saying that unless the dues of Rs. 3,12,656, which their erstwhile tenant had to pay were cleared, fresh connection could not be given.

The Judge directed that wherever there was an encumbrance over the properties pertaining to dues to the government like, municipal tax, electricity bill etc, and a charge should be created on such properties and the government should ensure the same was reflected in the encumbrance certificate.

This was necessary to protect the interest of purchasers, including government departments.

The court said it would be neither legal nor proper to insist on the realisation of the arrears due for giving re-connection.

The Judge also said that TNEB was at fault as it did not take steps to collect the dues.

 Article referred: http://www.ndtv.com/tamil-nadu-news/dues-to-government-should-be-mentioned-in-encumbrance-certificate-high-court-1203938

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more