Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.)

1. Rule.

2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 waive service. Respondent No. 4 absent, though served.

3. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

4. By this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners challenge an order of attachment dated 24th December, 2013 and further pray that the same be set aside.

5. The factual background in which this relief is claimed is that the 1st Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and the second Petitioner is its Managing Director. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra through the Commissioner of Sales Tax and his associate officers who are exercising powers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (“BST Act” for short). In exercise of the powers that are delegated to him, the second Respondent is seeking to enforce the attachment levied on the immovable properties, which shall be more particularly described in the following paragraphs.

6. The Respondent No. 3 is a company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its office at the address mentioned in the cause title.

7. The fourth Respondent carried on business as manufacturer of Aluninum castings. During the course of such business, it obtained financial assistance from financial institutions and banks. These were secured creditors. For securing the debt, the Respondent No. 4 had created an interest in favour of these financial institutions and within the meaning of this term (secured interest) under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act'). The Petitioners point out that the 4th Respondent carried on business for some years and thereafter, the factory was shut down. By the report of the consultant, who was appointed at the behest of these financial institutions, it was reported that the factory of Respondent No. 4 had ceased to carry on any manufacturing activities since 2000-01. The properties and assets were valued and thereafter, it has been pointed out as to how the debt of these financial institutions came to be assigned and taken over by Respondent No. 3. In pursuance of such rights, the 3rd Respondent initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act and particularly section 13 thereof. Thereafter, the immovable properties and which have been more particularly described in a public notice were put up for sale. That immovable properties are a piece and parcel of land situated at village Ajivali, Khopoli, District Raigad. More particularly described in Form No. 4 of the order of attachment dated 24th December, 2013 as survey Nos. 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 58/1B, 58/1C, 62/2 situated at Mauje Ajivali village, PenKhopoli Road, Taluka – Khalapur, District – Raigad (hereinafter referred to as the immovable properties). The Petitioners have pointed out as to how an offer was made by them and there were negotiations held, pursuant to which, the Petitioners’ offer was accepted. The Petitioners offer being accepted, the sale was concluded in their favour and for an agreed consideration. There were two sale certificates separately issued for movable (plant and machinery etc.) and immovable properties acknowledging receipt and handing over delivery and possession of the same. The Petitioners state that in the sale certificates, it was mentioned that the sale is on “as is where is” and “as is what is” basis and with all known and unknown encumbrances (except the encumbrances and liabilities to the secured creditors in respect of the financial facilities including interest thereon as against the schedule properties). It was mentioned that any other liability in respect of the secured assets and payable in law/attachable to the secured assets shall be the responsibility of the Petitioners. The sale certificate in respect of the immovable properties was thereafter registered on 31st January, 2008 with the Sub-Registrar, Karjat on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document