BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA

1. At the time of hearing of this Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the respondent No.2 of the Special Civil Application being SCA No. 17441 of 2011 against an order dated 25th June 2012 passed by a learned Single Judge in Civil Application for interim relief being C.A. No. 1534 of 2012, we decided to hear out the writ-application itself, instead of remanding the matter back to the learned Single Judge, as the questions involved are pure questions of law.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this Letters Patent Appeal may be summed up thus.

2.1 The writ-petitioner is a Limited Company, registered under the Companies Act. The respondent No.2 in the Special Civil Application, who is the appellant before us, issued a public advertisement dated 21st August 2010 in daily newspapers for sale of assets of M/s. Dairy Den Limited situated at survey No. 418 paiki Plot No. 18 to 25 and Survey No. 435 paiki at Lucky Industrial Estate, Kadi, Mehsana.

2.2 The writ-petitioner participated in the said auction and being the highest bidder of Rs.4,01,51,000/-, purchased the said property and paid the full consideration of Rs.4,01,51,000/-.

2.3 A Sale Certificate dated 18th September 2010 was issued by the Authorised Officer of the appellant, and the possession of the property was also handed over to the writ-petitioner. On receipt of the Sale Certificate, the writ-petitioner approached the Revenue authorities for getting the revenue records on 22nd September 2010 and according to the record obtained by the petitioner on that date, there was no clear mention of attachment of the PF Authorities on the property. Thereafter, registered sale deed No. 9940 dated 14th December 2010 had been executed in favour of the writ-petitioner by the appellant before us.

2.4 Subsequently, the writ-petitioner approached the Revenue authorities for mutating its name in the revenue records. However, at that time, it was found that there was a charge of the Provident Fund Department to the tune of Rs.37,60,159/-.

2.5 Immediately thereafter, the writ-petitioner approached the appellant informing them that there was a charge/attachment of the Provident Fund Department on the property sold to the writ-petitioner and also complained that the appellant never revealed the said charge and in the sale certificate, made a categorical statement that “the sale of the scheduled property was made free from all encumbrances known to the secured creditors, on deposit of money demanded by the undersigned”. The writ-petitioner also reminded the appellant that it had given a letter to the appellant on the day of the auction to confirm that there was no charge or encumbrance on the property to be auctioned and the appellant had informed and confirmed before all the participants of the auction that there was no charge or encumbrances on the property known to the Bank.

2.6 As the appellant Bank did not do anything further in the matter, the writ-petitioner issued a legal notice to the appellant on 13th July 2011 but there was no response from the appellant.

2.7 Subsequently, the writ-petitioner approached the PF authorities by its letter dated 27th July 2011 requesting to provide information regarding charge on the said property. The PF authorities, which is respondent No.2 in this appeal, informed the writ-petitioner that it had attached the property on 16th March 2009 and that by its letter dated 18th February 2010, it had intimated the appellant Bank about the outstanding of the PF arrears.

2.8 Subsequently, the writ-petitioner issued a legal correspondence through its advocate on 18th October 2011 to the PF authorities and copy of the same was also sent to the appellant Bank. In the said correspondence, it was stated that the Bank had acted illegally by not disclosing the fact about the charge of the PF authorities although the PF authorities had clearly informed the Bank about the creation of such charge and also pointed out distorted version of advertise