SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dinesh Maheshwari, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
Official Liquidator – Appellant
Versus
Ujjain Nagar Palika Nigam & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8015 & 8016 of 2010
Decided On : 04-05-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of liquidation process and ownership (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. sale of assets and claims raised by creditor (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments regarding liabilities of post-liquidation taxes (Para 6) |
| 4. court analysis on obligations of liquidator (Para 7) |
| 5. court's reasoning on sale and tax liabilities (Para 8) |
| 6. appellant's arguments and concerns (Para 9) |
| 7. counterarguments from respondents regarding tax liabilities (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 8. court's summary of the case and issues (Para 13 , 14) |
| 9. relevant sections and laws affecting liabilities (Para 15) |
| 10. ratio decidendi addressing complex liability issues (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 11. final judgment and dismissal of appeals (Para 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
1. By way of these appeals, the appellant, being Official Liquidator, 1[‘OL’, for short,] of the company named IISCO Ujjain Pipe and Foundry Company Limited, 2[Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the company in liquidation’,] has questioned the common judgment and order dated 05.02.2009 in APOT No. 248 of 2008 and APOT No. 235 of 2008, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta has dismissed the appeals against the common judgment and order dated 25.04.2007 in C.A. No. 159 of 2006 and C.A. No. 160 of 2006, as passed by the learned Company Judge of the High Court, 3[Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Company Court’,] in allowing the company applications preferred by respondent No.1 Ujjain Nagar Palika Nigam, Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Nigam’, claiming property tax and water tax from the appellant in relation to the company in liquidation, from the date of order of winding up and until the date of confirmation of sale of assets to the auction purchaser, who is now represented by respondent No. 3.
2. Briefly put, the relevant facts are that the said company, IISCO Ujjain Pipe and Foundry Company Limited, became sick and was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, For Short, ‘BIFR’, under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1956. The BIFR recommended its winding up and, accordingly, it was ordered to be wound up by the Company Court in its order dated 10.07.1997. The appellant herein was appointed as the Official Liquidator and was directed to take over possession of the assets of the company in liquidation.
3. Following an order passed by the Company Court on 04.04.2003, the assets of the company in liquidation were put up for sale on “as is where is whatever there is” basis by means of sale notice dated 09.05.2003. The said notice provided for inspection of the assets of the company by intending purchasers and mentioned the availability of terms and conditions of sale alongwith particulars about the assets of the company at the office of the appellant. This sale notice reads as under: -
“SALE NOTICE
Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta dated 4th April, 2003 offers are invited in sealed cover enclosing a Bank Draft or Pay Order in favour of Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta for an amount equivalent to 20% of the offered amount as earnest money for sale of the assets of the Company [In Liqn.] like land structure, building, machineries etc., lying at Dewas Road, Ujjain M.P., and lease hold land building quarter at Nana-Kheda, Indore road, Ujjain, M.P. The assets of the company will be sold 'as is where is whatever there is basis'. Balance amount is to be paid within 30 days from the date of sale and the possession is not be made only after full payment of the purchase price.
Sealed offers will be received by the Official Liquidator upon 5 p.m. dated 26th June 2003 and the same will be opened on 27th June 2003 at 2.00 p.m. before the Hon'ble Judge taking Company matters in the High Court at Calcutta for consideration of such sealed offers. No one will be allowed to purchase in favour of nominee or nominees.
Inspection of the assets of the Company [In liqn.]
UT Chandigarh Administration and Anr. v. Amerjeet Singh and Ors.: (2009) 4 SCC 660 [Para 9]
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Haji Abdul Gafur Haji Hussenbhai: (1971) 1 SCC 757 [Para 10]
AI Champdany Ltd. v. Official Liquidator and Anr.: (2009) 4 SCC 486 [Para 12.3]
Haryana Financial Corporation v. Rajesh Gupta: (2010) 1 SCC 655 [Para 9]
Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority v. Raghu Nath Gupta: (2012) 8 SCC 197 [Para 9]
United Bank of India v. Official Liquidator (1994) 1 SCC 575 [Para 18]
Auction purchasers are liable for outstanding property tax under statutory first charge, with obligations for pre-acquisition dues as part of 'as is where is' sale terms.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Surat Municipal Corporation cannot claim any first charge or precedence over the subject property for recovering property tax arrears, as ....
Auction purchasers are not liable for property taxes from previous owners if not adequately notified of such obligations, as confirmed by settled legal principles.
The provisions of the IBC have an overriding effect over other laws, including the MMVT Act, and that the claims against a corporate debtor in liquidation must be submitted to and decided by the Reso....
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.