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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more