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

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1259

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD 
ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.
Indian Overseas Bank - Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 12196 Of 2024
Decided On : 04-08-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Aayan Patel With Mr Dhanesh Desai For Singhi & Co.
For the Respondent: Ms Nidhi Vyas AGP, Mr. Rashesh Sanjanwala, Sr. Counsel, With Mr Nihar Thakkar With Mr Digant M Popat

The provisions of the SARFAESI Act grant secured creditors priority over state tax dues, rendering any conflicting claims by tax authorities ineffective.

Headnote:(A) SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Sections 13(2), 13(4), 26E; Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 - Section 31B; Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Section 48 - Priority dispute over mortgaged property - Petitioner Bank sought to quash charge created by the State Tax Authority on mortgaged property sold by it to realize dues from defaulting borrower - Court upheld that the Bank, as a secured creditor, has priority over State tax dues due to non-obstante clauses in relevant statutes - Charge created by State Tax Authority held ineffective against the secured creditor. (Paras 7, 10, 13-16)

(B) Legal priority regarding secured loans - Secured creditors entitled to priority over Government dues under SARFAESI and RDB Acts - Statutory framework established for enforcement of security interest, supporting the Bank's claim to recover dues. (Paras 7, 10, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner Bank sought to secure its dues from a mortgaged property following the declaration of the borrower's account as Non Performing Asset. The State Tax Authority registered a charge on this property for tax dues after the property was auctioned to a successful bidder, prompting the Bank's petition.

Findings of Court:
The State Tax Authority's registered charge was quashed, affirming the Bank's right to recover dues as a secured creditor.

Issues: Whether SARFAESI Act provisions regarding creditor priority prevail over the VAT Act's first charge clauses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that the non-obstante clauses in the SARFAESI and RDB Acts give secured creditors like the Bank overriding priority, thus nullifying the State's charge on the mortgaged property.

Result: Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:-

“26.A. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and/or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the Revenue Entry No. 8058 dated 02.03.2024, in respect of the said Property recording the purported charge of Respondent No. 4 over the said Property on the basis of Respondent No.4's application dated 02.03.2024;

B. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to:

(a) the Respondent No. 3 to forthwith and without any demur accept the sale certificate dated 02.05.2024 annexed at Annexure G" hereto for the purpose of registration and issue a certificate under Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 in respect of the sale certificate dated 02.05.2024;

(b) the Respondent No.5 to mutate necessary entries in the relevant revenue records, recording the sale of the said Property in favour of the Respondent No.7;

C. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, granting a mandatory injunction against the Respondent Nos.1 to 6, their men, agents, staffs, subordinates, employees, officers and associates, restraining them from dealing with, creating any charge and/or attempting to do any of the foregoing in respect of the said Property or any portion thereof in any manner whatsoever;

D. Pending hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon'ble Court by way of ad-interim/interim relief be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3 to accept and lodge the application for registration of the Sale Certificate dated 02.05.2024;

E. Pending hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the Respondent Nos.1 to 6, their men, agents, staffs, subordinates, employees, officers and associates from dealing with, creating any charge and/or attempting to do any of the foregoing in respect of the said Property or any portion thereof in any manner whatsoever;

F. Ex-parte ad interim and/or interim relief in terms of Prayers D and E be granted;

G. For Costs; and H. Such other and further relief as may be considered fit and expedient in the facts of the present case be granted.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is a Bank duly constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. A piece and parcel of land being Survey No.556, Village Mithirohar, Taluka Gandhidham, Kutch admeasuring 52,913 sq. mts. came to be mortgaged in favour of the petitioner as a security for a credit facility extended to the respondent No.8 i.e. Patel Woods Products Limited by way of equitable mortgage on deposit of title deeds. That accordingly a charge on the said property came to be registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 with the Registrar of Companies. That the respondent No.8 company defaulted in repayment of its loan and therefore, the account of the respondent No.8 came to be declared as Non Performing Asset (‘NPA’ for short) on 27.02.2012 in accordance with the applicable directives and guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. That pursuant to the declaration of the account of the respondent No.8 as NPA, the petitioner Bank issued a notice dated 03.12.2012 under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act” for short) to the respondent No.8 to repay its liability aggregating to Rs.79,40,71,061.66 as on 26.11.2012. Since the respondent No.8 failed to make the payment, the petitioner invoked its statutory right under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act and took symbolic possession of the property on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top