Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 462
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JAYANT NATH, J.
Minnie Pan (India) P. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
M/S Eurobike Ltd. – Respondent
CO.PET. 307 of 1999
Decided On : 13-03-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rachit Mittal, Ms. Tanvi Aggarwal, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Sonal Kumar Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Arjun Singh Bhati, Ms. Isha Khanna
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the interpretation of liability for payment of dues to the Noida Authority, emphasizing the responsibility of the UPFC until the transfer of possession to the Auction Purchaser.
Headnote:
Auction Purchaser - Property Transfer Dispute - Orders dated 20.11.2003, 29.07.2004, 01.08.2011, 04.02.2016, 21.04.2016 - Interpretation of liability for payment of dues to Noida Authority
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the payment of outstanding dues to the Noida Authority for a property purchased through auction. The Auction Purchaser sought direction for property transfer, while the UPFC filed for modification of the order regarding liability for dues.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the liability to pay the dues of Noida Authority rested with the UPFC until the possession of the property was handed over to the Auction Purchaser. The court dismissed the application filed by UPFC and directed UPFC to deposit the outstanding dues with the Noida Authority.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of the liability for payment of dues to the Noida Authority, specifically regarding the period for which the dues were payable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on its previous orders and consistently held that the UPFC was liable to pay the dues of the Noida Authority until the possession of the property was transferred to the Auction Purchaser.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application filed by UPFC and directed UPFC to deposit a sum with the Noida Authority. It also directed the Noida Authority to carry out the necessary mutation in favor of the Auction Purchaser.
JAYANT NATH, J.
CA No. 122/2015 and 1258/2006
1. CA No. 122/2015 has been filed by the Auction Purchaser-M/s. Real Contracts Pvt. Ltd. seeking a direction to the Noida Authority for transferring/mutation of the property bearing No. C-6, Phase II, Noida U.P. in favour of the applicant on payment of transfer charges as recorded by this court in its order dated 29.07.2004.
2. CA No. 1258/2006 is filed by UPFC for modification of the order dated 29.07.2004.
3. Some of the brief facts are that the respondent Company-M/s. Eurobike Ltd. went into winding up some time in 1999. The OL took charge of the assets of the company on 06.10.1999. It is the case of the UPFC that it is a secured creditor and the property in question i.e. C-6, Phase II, Noida U.P. was charged to it. This court on 13.12.2001 permitted the OL to dispose of the said property by way of auction.
4. It is in this background that some of the orders passed by this court would be relevant. On 20.11.2003, this court had noted that sale proclamation had been issued by UPFC in respect of the said property and only one offer had been received. Earlier, efforts were made seven times but only one tender was received which was considered to be on the lower side. This court had noted that four persons, namely, Sh. Dinesh Verma, Sh.Hem Singh Rana, Sh. Mohd. Tariq and Smt. Sadhna Kumar had initially made an offer of Rs.4.01 crores jointly but when UPFC contacted the said bidder, they upped their bid to Rs.4.25 crores (now the applicant Company in CA 122/2015 as the rights of bidder now vest in the said Company). This court accepted the aforesaid bid of Rs.4.25 crores. Other consequential directions regarding the government dues were also noted. It was ordered that all dues including the government dues in respect of the property would be payable by the Auction Purchaser from the date when the possession of the same is handed over to the Auction Purchaser. It was also made clear that the sale is on “as is where is” basis. Thereafter, on 29.07.2004 this court confirmed the sale in favour of the Auction Purchaser and directed UPFC to hand over possession of the property. This court also noted the earlier order dated 20.11.2003 whereby this court had directed that the government dues in respect of the property shall be payable by the Auction Purchaser from the date when the possession is received. This court held that it is thus clear that till the giving of possession of the property to the Auction Purchaser, the liability to clear the dues would be that of UPFC including the outstanding dues of Noida Authority. Thereafter, UPFC has filed the present application being CA No. 1258/2006 sometimes in October 2006, namely, two years thereafter, claiming that the liability of NOIDA cannot be thrust on UPFC. It may be noted that when this application came up for hearing on 19.10.2006, a submission was recorded of learned counsel for UPFC that he is not asking the Auction Purchaser to make payment of dues payable to NOIDA Authority, Trade Tax Department, etc.
5. I may also note few other facts. On 18.08.2004, possession of the property was handed over to the Auction Purchaser. Thereafter on 26.10.2004, a sale deed was executed and registered by UPFC in favour of M/s. Real Contracts Pvt. Ltd.-Auction Purchaser.
6. The bone of contention between the parties is the dues of Noida Authority. Noida Authority, has filed an affidavit dated 24.01.2018 whereby the breakup of the dues is given. It has been pointed out that the total outstanding dues including interest are Rs.32,14,76,463.49/- for the period 02.01.1995 i.e. date of allotment till possession was given to the auction purchaser i.e. 17.08.2004. This includes lease rent from 15.03.1995 to 14.03.2003 and instalments payable from 15.03.1995 to 17.08.2004 which come to a total of Rs.1,55,83,564/- plus interest. Subsequent to handing over possession of the property, a sum of Rs.1.71 crores is claimed by Noida Authority on the same grounds i
