SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND ANR. - APPELLANTS
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5023 OF 2008
Decided On : 12-09-2017
State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 - Sale of Hypothecated Property - First Charge - Premature Enforcement
Fact of the Case:
Sabhyata Plastics Pvt Ltd. was financed by Rajasthan Financial Corporation and defaulted on payments. The Corporation sold the hypothecated property to Subramaniam Shastri, reserving the first charge on the property. The property was later attached due to alleged Central Excise dues, leading to the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the Corporation had sold the property in public auction, and the auction purchaser would be the aggrieved party. The High Court also held that the issue of the first charge on the property was premature, as the stage for enforcement of the charge would come only when the property is sold for recovery of the Central Excise dues.
Issues: Enforcement of first charge on the property and the aggrieved party in the sale of the property by the Corporation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the High Court's conclusion was justified, and the stage at which the remedy of the Financial Corporation may be invoked adequately addressed the appellant's grievance.
Final Decision: The court declined to interfere with the High Court's order and dismissed the appeal.
ORDER :
1. We have heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. One Sabhyata Plastics Pvt Ltd. was financed by Rajasthan Financial Corporation for carrying out its business. A default having occurred, the Corporation acted under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 and sold the hypothecated property to one Subramaniam Shastri. The sale was approved by the Board of the Corporation; possession was handed over to the buyer and a conditional conveyance deed was also executed by reserving the first charge on the property until payment of all dues. In the meantime, on account of certain alleged Central Excise dues payable by the erstwhile owner-Sabhyata Plastics Pvt. Ltd., the department had attached the property leading to the institution of the writ petition, out of which this appeal arises.
3. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court primarily on the ground that Rajasthan Financial Corporation having sold the property in public auction the person aggrieved would have been the auction purchaser and not the Corporation. The claim of the Corporation with regard the first charge on the property was answered by the High Court by holding that the stage for enforcement of the charge would come only when the property is sold for recovery of the Central Excise dues and therefore, the issue raised with regard to the first charge on the property is pre-mature.
4. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on consideration of the conditional conveyance deed, we are of the view that the High Court was perfectly justified in coming to the impugned conclusion. The stage at which the remedy of the Financial Corporation may be invoked, as pointed out by the High Court, adequately takes care of the grievance of the appellant.
5. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the order passed by the High Court and consequently dismiss the present appeal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.