SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Guj) 83

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SONIA GOKANI, SANDEEP N. BHATT, JJ.
NILESH KESHAVLAL MODI – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 7651 of 2022
Decided On : 07-01-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: HIREN J. TRIVEDI.
For the Respondent: SIDDHARTH RAMI.

Headnote:

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Section 13(1) - Security Interest Rules, 2002 - Rule 8(5), (6), 9 (6) - Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Section 13(2) - Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 - Sections 152 and 200 - Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 - Section 152 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 69, A - Property - Provide collateral security by way of mortgage - Petitioner seeking extraordinary jurisdiction to delete charge created under Gujarat Value Added Tax Act for property owned by petitioner as per private treaty under provisions of SARFAESI Act – Held, In case of Central Bank of India vs. State of Kerala and Others, where apex Court had held that if State acts to create first charge on property, then secured creditors cannot have claim against statutory provision - While so holding, it took into consideration section 100 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Court held that when two or more laws or provisions operate in same field and each contains non-obstante clause stating that its provision will override those of any other provisions of law stimulating an intricate problem of interpretation arises while relying on such problems of interpretation, no settled principles can be applied, except to refer to object and purpose of each of provisions containing non-obstante clause - Two provisions in same Act, each containing a non-obstante clause requires harmonious interpretation of two seemingly conflicting provisions of same Act - Resultantly, petition stands allowed deleting and removing noting of all charges and encumbrance created under Act on land located at Revenue Survey with consequential relief - Petition allowed.

ORDER :

1. Petition is preferred by the petitioner seeking extraordinary jurisdiction to delete the charge created under Gujarat Value Added Tax Act for the property owned by the petitioner as per the private treaty under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and Rule 8(5) read with Rule (6) of the Security Interest Rules, 2002 (Security Rules).

2. The entire premise of the petitioner is that the provisions contained in SARFAESI Act have an overriding effect over the provisions of the VAT Act and the secured creditors shall have priority over the dues of Central Excise Department. The act of creating a charge over the property, which has been bought by the petitioners (purchasers for recovering dues of erstwhile owners) is totally without jurisdiction and hence, the present petition with the following reliefs:

    “(16) In the premises aforesaid, the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays that:

(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions to the respondent authorities to quash and set aside noting of the charge in revenue record of the R.S. No. 277, Village: Kamod, Taluka: Vatva, District: Ahmedabad.

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions to the respondent authorities to delete the charge created under the Act on land located at R.S. No. 277, village: Kamod, Taluka: Vatva, District: Ahmedabad and further be pleased to and direct the Respondent No. 2 herein to lift/remove all its charges, encumbrances over the land situated at R.S. No. 277, village: Kamod, Taluka: Vatva, District: Ahmedabad.

(BB) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/pr a writ in the nature of mandamus and/pr any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the mamlatdar, Vatva, Ahmedabad, to post and certify a mutation entry to record the Certificate of Sale dated 15.03.2021 (bearing registration no. 4498) for the land in question.

(C) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to restrain from taking any coercive steps pursuant to charge created under the Act on property located at R.S. No. 277, Village: Kamod, Taluka: Vatva, District: Ahmedabad.

(D) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

3. The petitioners are purchasers of the property sold by the secured creditors viz the COSMOS Co-operative Bank Limited, upon which, the impugned charge is created and, thereafter, the mutation entry, being 2374, was passed in village Form No. 6. Respondent No. 1 is the Commissioner of State Tax/Commercial Tax, who exercises jurisdiction under the provisions of VAT Act and the GST Act.

4. One Anilbhai Kanjibhai Patel, proprietor of M/s. Manan Auto Spares, was the owner of the non-agricultural land situated at Revenue Survey No. 277, Village: Kamod, Taluka; Vatva, District: Ahmedabad. The said land was bought vide sale deed dated 13.12.2007. The owner approached the Bank for over draft facility of Rs. 14,50,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Crore Fifty lakhs only), which was sanctioned with various terms and conditions, wherein the owner was required to provide collateral security by way of mortgage of the land in question. Simple mortgage deed dated 06.04.2015 was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad-10, at S. No. 1586 on 07.04.2015. The owner could not repay the outstanding loan and dues of the bank and had committed default in repayment and, therefore, the account was classified as Non-Performing Asset. The authorised officer of the Bank issued a demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act for the recovery of outstanding amount and advised the owner to pay such sum within 60 days, faili

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top