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

2017 Supreme(Mad) 63

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. MANIKUMAR, M. GOVINDARAJ, JJ.
S. Reshma - Petitioner
Vs.
Debt Recovery Tribunal rep. By its Registrar Spencer Towers & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 5530 of 2014
Decided On : 04-01-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. Thiyagarajan
For the Respondents: Mr. P. Elaya Rajkumar, M/s. Ramalingam Associates

Headnote:

Income-Tax Act, 1961 – Income-tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962 – Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 – Section 30 (1) – Whereas the Certificate holder bank has now identified the undermentioned unsecured immovable property in which the fourth certificate debtor/defaulter is having one third share, being a joint owner, which is sought to be attached/sold by the certificate holder bank in execution of the RC issued against the defaulters – It is hereby ordered that you, the said defendants be and you are hereby prohibited and restrained from transferring and charging the under mentioned properties in any way and that all persons be and are hereby prohibited and restrained from taking any benefit under such transfer or charge – Also note that unless the money is paid forthwith the undermentioned properties will be sold by public auction and the money will be realised without any further notice or intimation –Held, Interpretation of a Statutory provision should be to find out the intention of the legislature and that has to be understood with due regard that the object of the legislation also – Word employed in the Statute will acquire meaning and content depending upon the context in which they are used – Word should not be torn out by the context and by interpretation, it would make another provision Otiose/redundant and such interpretation should not be adopted – When Section 30 of the Act contains a non-obstante clause, by referring to a particular provision, Section 29 of the Act, then, in our considered opinion, the latter intends to overcome the former – In Sadashiv Prasad Singh Vs. Harendar Singh and Others reported in (2015) 5 SCC 574, objections were raised to the recovery proceedings by a person claiming to be the owner of the property – There were other issues also – Writ petition is allowed.

ORDER :

S. Manikumar, J.

On 13/7/2011, in D.R.C.No.161/2010, in O.A.No.119 of 2007, Debts Recovery Tribunal I, Chennai, has passed the following order:-

“Whereas you the defendants have failed to pay the sum of Rs.6,04,67,154.42 p (Rupees Six crores four lakhs sixty seven thousand one hundred and fifty four and paise forty two only), payable by you, jointly and severally, to the applicant in terms of Debt Recovery Certificate No.161/2010 dated 14/12/2010 issued in O.A.No.119/2007 drawn up by the Hon'ble Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal I, at Chennai, and further interest and costs payable as per law:

Whereas the Certificate holder bank has now identified the undermentioned unsecured immovable property in which the fourth certificate debtor/defaulter is having one third share, being a joint owner, which is sought to be attached/sold by the certificate holder bank in execution of the RC issued against the defaulters.

It is hereby ordered that you, the said defendants be and you are hereby prohibited and restrained from transferring and charging the under mentioned properties in any way and that all persons be and are hereby prohibited and restrained from taking any benefit under such transfer or charge.

Also note that unless the money is paid forthwith the undermentioned properties will be sold by public auction and the money will be realised without any further notice or intimation.

Description of Property

One third undivided share of Ms.L.Rasina (4th certificate debtor/defaulter) in all that piece and parcel of land and building bearing Door No.5, Damodara Mudali Street, Chetpet, Chennai measuring an extent of 2 grounds and 1678.5 sq.ft comprised in S.No.450/5 and 450/41 of Egmore village, Egmore Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai, bounder on the North by Club Road; South by Door No.6, Damodara Mudali Street; East by Door No.54 B, 54 A and 54 part of Dr. T.V. Naidu Street and on the West by Door No.4 property owned by LIC of India, situated within the Sub-Registration District of Periamet.”

2. S. Reshma, Chennai, a third party to the above said proceedings, has filed Claim Petition No.26 of 2011 in D.R.C.No.161 of 2010 in O.A.No.109/2007, on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal I, Chennai, contending inter alia that she is the owner of the property, by virtue of Hiba, dated 9/10/1998, which was reduced into writing on 15/10/1998, under the proceedings of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (51 of 1993). In the Claim Petition No.26 of 2011, she has sought for impleadment as respondent No.6 in Recovery proceeding ARC No.161/2010. She has also sought for a prayer, to vacate the order of attachment, dated 13/7/2011, in respect of the undivided share of Ms. L. Rasina, in respect of the property situated at Door No.5, Damodara Mudali Street, Chetpet, Chennai 31. Opposing the prayer sought for, M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Asset Reconstruction Division, has filed a detailed counter affidavit.

3. After considering the rival submissions to the challenge viz., the order of attachment, dated 13/7/2011, as against the undivided share of Ms. I. Rasina/fourth defendant (certificate debtor) in respect of the above said property and the claim of the writ petitioner/third party, the Debts Recovery Tribunal I, Chennai, vide, order, dated 10/12/2013 in C.P.No.26 of 2011 in D.R.C.No.161 of 2010, dismissed the claim petition.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, writ petitioner/third party has filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal I, Chennai, under Section 30 (1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

5. Debts Recovery Tribunal I, Chennai, vide order dated 21/1/2014, rejected the appeal in S.R.No.7183 of 2013 and the same reads as hereunder:-

“The petitioner having filed claim/objection before Recovery Officer as per Rule 11 of Procedure for Recovery of Tax, if aggrieved by any order of RO shall seek Redressal subject to Sub-Rule (6) to Rule 11. No appeal is filed/preferred before the Tribunal.
















































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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