Back
BMC's Survives Liquidation; Holds Auction Purchaser Indojewel Liable for Dues
In a significant ruling that clarifies the interplay between statutory charges and , the , has held that a created under the , in favour of the for outstanding property tax dues is not extinguished by a . The tribunal further ruled that the auction purchaser——cannot escape liability merely because BMC participated in the .
The decision reinforces the principle that a with a retains its rights over the property even after a , and that the purchaser must conduct thorough before bidding. The tribunal also rejected the argument that provides blanket from all prior dues.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from the liquidation of , which was admitted into insolvency on , and subsequently ordered into liquidation on . During the liquidation process, the liquidator conducted an e-auction for the corporate debtor's unit located in the . emerged as the successful bidder, purchasing the property on , for ₹5.31 crore and paying the entire sale consideration.
Shortly after the sale, BMC approached Indojewel claiming ₹86.58 lakh as outstanding property tax dues relating to the pre-liquidation period. BMC had already lodged its claim in the , but its over the property remained unsatisfied. Indojewel resisted the demand, arguing that the dues pertained to a period before the liquidation and that BMC's participation in the liquidation process amounted to an election to recover through the distribution of proceeds rather than by enforcing the charge against the property.
The Auction Notice and "" Sale
The auction notice dated , and the certificate of sale dated , expressly stated that the property was sold on an “, as is what is, whatever there is, and no recourse basis.” Indojewel contended that this language meant it was not liable for any pre-existing dues, especially those that had already been claimed in the liquidation. The company argued that it had purchased the property free and clear of all encumbrances other than those disclosed.
However, the tribunal rejected this contention. It observed that the “” clause does not absolve the purchaser from liabilities attached to the property; rather, it places the onus on the buyer to investigate all encumbrances before bidding. The tribunal noted that the list of stakeholders dated , clearly reflected BMC’s claim and the outstanding liabilities, making it incumbent upon Indojewel to conduct its own .
Tribunal's Reasoning on
The coram of Judicial Member Vinay Goel and Technical Member Charanjeet Singh Gulati anchored its decision on , which creates a on property for municipal taxes. Unlike a contractual charge, a is created by operation of law and cannot be extinguished merely by a sale in liquidation. The tribunal held:
"Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case,
, creates a
in favour of the Municipal Authority in respect of its outstanding dues. Once such a charge comes into existence, the Municipal Authority is entitled to enforce the same against the property, notwithstanding that it had also lodged its claim before the Liquidator. Accordingly, the mere fact that Respondent No. 1 participated in the Liquidation process does not result in extinguishment of the
created under
, nor does it preclude the Municipal Authority from seeking enforcement of the charge against the property."
This reasoning draws a clear distinction between the right to lodge a claim in liquidation (which is a procedural step to recover from the liquidation estate) and the to enforce a against the property itself. The two are not mutually exclusive. The remains an independent right that survives the distribution of liquidation proceeds.
Section 32A(2) IBC Inapplicable
Indojewel also sought refuge under , which provides to the corporate debtor’s property from actions relating to offences committed prior to the commencement of the or liquidation. The tribunal, however, clarified that this is confined to and does not extend to ordinary statutory dues such as property tax.
The tribunal stated:
"Section 32A(2) of the
provides
concerning actions against the Corporate Debtor's property relating to prior offences. The Tribunal therefore said that such
does not extend to ordinary outstanding statutory charges or dues."
In other words, the protection under Section 32A is aimed at shielding the new management or buyer from prosecution for past wrongs, not from like municipal taxes.
Implications for Auction Purchasers and Liquidators
This ruling sends a strong message to buyers in liquidation auctions: they cannot assume that all prior dues are wiped out simply because the sale is on an “” basis. The duty to investigate encumbrances, especially statutory charges, rests squarely on the purchaser. Liquidators, too, must ensure that the sale terms clearly disclose all outstanding statutory charges and that the list of stakeholders accurately reflects these liabilities.
For municipal corporations and other statutory authorities, the judgment affirms that their remains potent even in the face of liquidation. They are not required to choose between filing a claim in liquidation and enforcing their charge against the property—they can pursue both avenues. This may encourage more aggressive recovery actions by local bodies against insolvent companies.
Legal Community Reaction
Legal professionals have welcomed the clarity provided by the . The decision harmonises the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act with the IBC, affirming that the IBC does not override every pre-existing unless expressly provided. It also serves as a cautionary tale for bidders: is not optional, and the “” clause is a double-edged sword that places the risk of unknown liabilities on the buyer.
The ruling is likely to be cited in future disputes involving statutory charges in liquidation, particularly where state or municipal laws create first charges for taxes, water charges, or other levies. It underscores the principle that a is a that cannot be defeated by in insolvency proceedings.
Conclusion
By dismissing Indojewel’s application, the has reinforced the enduring nature of statutory first charges in the context of liquidation. The auction purchaser must now pay the ₹86.58 lakh demanded by BMC. Beyond the specific facts, the case serves as a pivotal precedent on the interaction between local municipal laws and the IBC, reminding all stakeholders that insolvency does not automatically erase all prior encumbrances, especially those rooted in statutory mandates.
