Skip to main content

Generally transferee of a premises cannot be made liable for the dues of the previous owner/ occupier without agreement

In Madhuben Rameshchandra Shah vs Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn., the Petitioner had applied for allotment of shed pursuant to the advertisement of Respondent No.1. Petitioner submitted an application and was allotted Shed vide allotment letter. The Petitioner paid an amount of Rs.1,76,000/- towards allotment of the shed, as an initial payment. The Petitioner was informed that he would be able to get connection from the Gujarat Electricity Board in due course. After the transfer of possession of the allotted shed ,vide letter dated 14.10.1999, the Petitioner came to know, vide letter dated 30.06.2000, from Respondent No.-3 that the previous allottee of the shed had to pay Rs.1,26,479/- to the Gujarat Electricity Board for the shed purchased by him. The Petitioner, vide letter dated 17.09.2001 intimated Respondent No.-2 that dues of previous allottee were also pending towards the municipal tax of Surat Municipal Corporation. The Petitioner requested Respondent No.2 to clear outstanding dues of the previous allottee and to issue clear title of the Shed. Due to failure of Respondent No.1 to pay the requisite dues of the previous allottee, the Petitioner suffered financial loss due to non-commencement of his industry/business, which led to his failure to pay dues on time. GIDC passed eviction order on 8.02 .2007 under section-4 (i) of GPP Act. Aggrieved by the above, the Petitioner preferred a Complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service.

The District forum allowed the Complaint on grounds of deficiency in service by Respondent No. 1 and 2 for not returning the amount of Rs.1,76,000/- paid for the shed allotted by the Opposite Parties. Order of the District Forum was set aside by the State Commission on the ground that the District Forum had not considered the agreement for the sale. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Complainant before NCDRC.

The NCDRC after perusing the allotment letter and the agreement and found that there is no express provision which mentioned that the purchaser of the premises had to pay electricity dues of the previous allottee. The Respondents also have not placed on record any evidence authorizing them to demand arrears of the previous allottee. In the absence of there being any specific statutory provision or clause in the Sale Agreement, the allottee cannot be compelled to clear the dues of the previous allottee. Dues relating to electricity charges cannot be enforced against the next allottee i.e. Petitioner.

The NCDRC while setting aside the order of the Stae Commission and confirming the District Forum order, referred to judgment of the Supreme Court in Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Electricity Board vs. M/s Hamuman Rice Mills Dhanauri & Ors. where it was held that “electricity arrears do not constitute a charge over the property. Therefore in general law, a transferee of a premises cannot be made liable for the dues of the previous owner/ occupier. Where the statutory rules or terms and conditions of supply which are statutory in character, authorize the supplier of electricity, to demand from the purchaser of a property claiming re-connection or fresh connection of electricity, the arrears due by the previous owner/occupier in regard to supply of electricity to such premises, the supplier can recover the arrears from a purchaser.” Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. Gujarat Inns. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.  held “We are clearly of the opinion that in case of a fresh connection though the premises are the same, the auction purchasers cannot be held liable to clear the arrears incurred by the previous owners in respect of power supply to the premises in the absence of there being a specific statutory provision in that regard.”


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more