IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
Bank of Baroda – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat and Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 12995 of 2018
Decided On : 16-09-2019
SARFAESI Act, 2002- Section 26-E- Constitution of India- Article 226- Nationalized bank – Loan – Auction Sale - Quashing and setting aside the public notice issued by the respondent no. 3 published in Gujarat Samachar newspaper - First priority over the secured assets shall be of the Bank and not of the State Government by virtue of Section 48 of the VAT Act, 2003.
Facts of the Case:
Writ-applicant Bank sanctioned loan in favour of the respondent no. 4, a partnership firm. By way of security, the respondent no. 4 created a mortgage in favour of the Bank of non-agricultural land along with the construction standing thereon in the name of Kothari Industrial Estate, Rakanpur-Santej Road, Santej, Taluka Kalol, District Gandhinagar. The original title-deeds of the properties were handed over by the respondent no. 4 in favour of the Bank. The registered mortgage deed referred to above came to be executed on 20th August 2012 and the same was registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar
Finding of the Court:
Before the assessment proceedings, or, to put it in other words, before a particular amount is determined and becomes due to be payable if there is any transfer of property of the dealer, such transfer would not be a void transfer. Therefore, the condition precedent is that the tax should become due and such tax which has become due shall be payable by a dealer. Once this part is over, then Section 48 of the VAT Act would come into play. It is preposterous to suggest in the case on hand that as the assessment year was 2012-13, Section 48 could be said to apply from 2012-13 itself. Even in the absence of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act or Section 31B of the RDB Act, Section 48 of the VAT Act would come into play only after the determination of the tax, interest or penalty liable to be paid to the Government. Only thereafter it could be said that the Government shall have the first charge on the property of the dealer.
Result:Allowed
JUDGMENT :
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
1. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicant, a nationalized bank, has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(A) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the public notice issued by the respondent no. 3 at Annexure-P published in Gujarat Samachar newspaper dated 20.08.2018, for the reasons stated in the Memo of Petition and in the interest of justice;
(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the above Special Civil Application, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the respondent nos. 1 to 3 from taking any further action, pursuant to the public advertisement given by them in Gujarat Samachar newspaper dated 20.8.2018 (Annexure-P), in view of the provisions of Section 26-E of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 coupled with the fact that the petitioner is in possession of the property in question from 02.08.2017 and making efforts to dispose of the property in question through public auction, for the reasons stated in the Memo of Petition and in the interest of justice;
(C) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other appropriate relief as the nature circumstances of the case may require."
2. The facts giving rise to this writ-application may be summarised as under:
(1) On 12th June 2012, the writ-applicant Bank sanctioned loan to the tune of Rs. 1,40,00,000=00 in favour of the respondent no. 4, a partnership firm. By way of security, the respondent no. 4 created a mortgage in favour of the Bank of non-agricultural land bearing Block No. 806/paiki/5 admeasuring 1443 sq. meters along with the construction admeasuring about 518 sq.meters standing thereon in the name of Kothari Industrial Estate, Rakanpur-Santej Road, Santej, Taluka Kalol, District Gandhinagar. The original title-deeds of the properties were handed over by the respondent no. 4 in favour of the Bank. The registered mortgage deed referred to above came to be executed on 20th August 2012 and the same was registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kalol.
(2) On 19th June 2013, a supplementary mortgage-deed came to be executed by the partners of the borrowing firms, namely Shri Navinbhai Dahyabhai Patel and Smt. Pallaviben Navinbhai Patel, in their personal capacity by mortgaging their bungalow bearing No. 2/A, Plot No. B/1 admeasuring 290 sq. yards with undivided share in the land known as 'Maruti Hills' situated on Final Plot No. 6/2/p and 7/2/p, Sub-Plot No. 17/2/B of Survey No. 965/6 of Mouje Vejalpur and also residential immovable property bearing City Survey No. 906/A admeasuring 256.85 sq. meters situated at Visnagar, Taluka Visnagar, District Mehsana.
(3) On 31st January 2014, a third mortgage-deed was executed by the two partners referred to above in their personal capacity registered with the Sub-Registrar, Kalol, on the very same day and date.
(4) It appears that over and above the credit facility aggregating to Rs. 140.00 lakh which was sanctioned first in point of time, the said facility later came to be enhanced to Rs. 320.66 lakh and from Rs. 320.66 lakh, the same came to be enhanced to Rs. 485.15 lakh. It appears that the respondent no. 4 defaulted in the repayment of the loan amount.
(5) On 3rd May 2016, a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the SARFAESI Act') came to be issued upon all the partners of the firm. The partners were restrained from selling or transferring the secured assets without the prior permission of the Bank.
(6) On 2nd September 2016, a notice was issued for the purpose of taking over of the possession of the secured assets. Ultimately, after complying with all the legal procedures under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the physic
Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose [AIR 1952 SC 369]
Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (CT) v. Indian Overseas Bank reported in 2016 (6) CTC 769
Assistant Collector of Central Excises and another v. Kashyap Engineering & Metallurgical (P) Ltd.
A.G. Varadarajulu v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1998) 4 SCC 231]
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Saurashtra Paints Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2002 (2) GLR 1109
Builders Supply Corporation vs. Union of India AIR 1965 SC 1061
Collector of Aurangabad vs. Central Bank of India AIR 1967 SC 1831
Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and others
Dena Bank v. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh and Company
Dominion of India v. Shrinbai A. Irani [AIR 1954 SC 596]
E.P.F. Commissioner v. O.L. of Esskay Pharma
Employees Provident Fund Commissioner v. Official Liquidator of Esskay Pharmaceuticals Limited
Kumaon Motor Owners' Union Ltd. and another v. State of U.P.
Laxman alias Laxman Mourya v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another
Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India and another [ (1971) 1 SCC 85]
Nisar and another v. State of U.P.
R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka and another [(1992) 1 SCC 335
State Bank of West Bengal v. Union of India
Shri Swaran Singh & Anr. v. Shri Kasturi Lal; (1977) 1 SCC 750
Solidaire India Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. and others
State of West Bengal v. Union of India
State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah and others
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. National Iron & Steel Rolling Corporation and others
The South India Corporation (P.) Ltd., v. The Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum & Anr.
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.