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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more