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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

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