The main legal point established in the judgment is that a charge may not be enforced against a transferee if they had no notice of the charge, unless by law, the requirement of such notice has been waived.

B. P. Colabawalla, J.

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners challenge the legality and validity of the attachment order dated 29th April, 2013 but signed on 2nd May, 2013 (for short, the “impugned attachment order”) (Exh ‘Q’ to the Petition), passed by the Sale Tax Authorities. The attachment was levied on an immovable property purchased by the Petitioners pursuant to an auction conducted by Respondent No.2 – SICOM under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the “SARFAESI Act”). Petitioner No.1 is a Company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and Petitioner No.2 is its shareholder. It is the case of the Petitioners that the impugned attachment order was passed by Respondent No.5 (Sales Tax officer, C-008, VAT Recovery, Raigad Division, Belapur, Navi Mumbai), after the said property was purchased by the Petitioners for valuable consideration and without any notice of the alleged charge of the Sale Tax Authorities, which they now seek to enforce against the said property.

3. It is the case of the Petitioners that one M/s. Iccon Oil and Specialties Ltd (for short, “Iccon Oil”) was the owner of an immovable property consisting of land and factory buildings, other structures and plant and machinery, situate at Plot No.1, Survey No.59 (Part) of Village Honad, at Takai - Adhoshi Road, Taluka Khalapur, District Raigad, area of plot admeasuring approximately 10,790 sq.mtrs. and built up area thereon admeasuring 10,552.31 sq.ft. (hereinafter referred to as the “secured property”). The said Iccon Oil was also a debtor of Respondent No.2 – SICOM. To recover its dues from Iccon Oil, Respondent No.2 conducted an auction of the secured property under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. In this auction, the Petitioners were the highest bidder and the sale was accordingly confirmed in their favour. It is in these circumstances that the Petitioners claim to be the owners of the secured property.

4. It appears that Iccon Oil, apart from being a debtor of Respondent No.2, was also in arrears of its Sales Tax dues to the tune of Rs.2,77,72,073/-. To recover these arrears, Respondent No.5 passed the impugned attachment order, attaching the secured property. As stated earlier, it is the case of the Petitioners that when they purchased the secured property, they had no notice of the purported charge / claim of the Sales Tax Authorities in the sum of Rs.2,77,72,073/-. It is in these circumstances that the Petitioners challenge the legality and validity of the impugned attachment order (Exh.'Q' to the Petition), on the ground that the same is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.

5. The contesting Respondents in this Writ Petition are Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 & 5. Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra and Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are high ranking officials of the Sales Tax Department. Respondent No.6 is the Official Liquidator of the erstwhile Iccon Oil that has been ordered to be wound up pursuant to an order dated 18th March, 2015 passed by this Court in Company Petition No.653 of 2013. Respondent No.7 is the Tahsildar of Taluka Khalapur, District Raigad and Respondent No.8 is the Talathi, Honad, Taluka Khalapur.

6. It is the case of the Petitioners that on the secured property, the said Iccon Oil carried on its business as a manufacturer of lubricating and other oils, petroleum products, petro-chemicals etc. During the course of its business, Iccon Oil obtained financial assistance from banks like Central Bank of India, Union Bank of India and State Bank of Indore (now merged in State Bank of India). Such assistance was obtained inter alia against security of its immovable and movable property, including plant and machineries. Since Iccon Oil did not