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

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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more