Back
2018 Supreme(Ori) 860
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Mr. S.K. Sahoo, J.
Sri Tribikram Padhi - Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha - Respondent
CRLA No. 580 of 2017
Decided On : 25-06-2018
Mr. Pradipta Ku. Mohanty, Senior Advocate, for the Appellants; Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra Addl. Govt. Advocate, for the Respondent No. 1
Cases Referred
Amrendra Pratap Singh Vs. Tej Bahadur Prajapati, A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 3782
Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 532
B. Rangaiah Vs. B. Rangaswamy (1970) 2 Andh WR 181
Bhaskarabhotla Padmanabhaiah Vs. B. Lakshminarayana : AIR 1962 Andhra Pradesh 132
Bondar Singh Vs. Nihal Singh (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 161
Chandra Sekhar Misra Vs. Gobinda Chandra Das : A.I.R. 1966 Orissa 18
Firm Chuni Lal Tukki Mal Vs. Firm Mukat Lal Ram Chanda : AIR 1968 Allahabad 164
Guman Singh Vs. Manga Singh (2016) 3 Recent Civil Reports Civil 592
Omprakash Vs. Laxminarayan (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 618
Pandey Oraon Vs. Ram Chander Sahu A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 195
Ram Rattan Vs. Parmanand, AIR 1946 PC 51
Sanjeeva Reddi Vs. Johanputra Reddi AIR 1972 Andhra Pradesh 373
Siddanna Apparao Potil Vs. State of Maharashtra A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 977
T. Bhaskar Rao Vs. T. Gabriel, AIR 1981 Andhra Pradesh 175
The court emphasized the importance of registration of creation of charge and the ineffectiveness of unregistered agreements in conferring rights or titles in property.
Headnote:
O.P.I.D. Act - Intervention Application - Section 9(3) - 2013 Act - Section 77 - Collusive Transaction - Unregistered Agreement - Summary Dismissal of Appeal
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed an appeal under section 13 of the O.P.I.D. Act, seeking to set aside the impugned order rejecting their objection petition under section 9(3) of the O.P.I.D. Act, which was filed for intervention in the proceeding and for exempting the property of M/s. Hitech Estate and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. from attachment and sale.
Finding of the Court:
The Designated Court held that the unregistered agreement filed by the appellants cannot confer any right, title, etc. in their favor, and without acquiring any title to the attached property, their claim of interest has no leg to stand upon.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the appellants' claim of interest in the attached property, the registration of creation of charge in their favor, and the refusal of the Designated Court to entertain the objection petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the unregistered agreement and the draft sale deed did not create any interest or title in the property attached in favor of the appellants, and the Designated Court was justified in refusing to entertain the objection petition.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was dismissed as the court found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Designated Court.
JUDGMENT
Mr. S.K. Sahoo, J. - The appellants Tribikram Padhi and Smt. Sunita Padhi have filed this appeal under section 13 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 (hereafter 'O.P.I.D. Act') with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court, O.P.I.D. Act, Cuttack in Interim Application No. 03 of 2017 in rejecting their objection petition dated 18.03.2017 under section 9(3) of the O.P.I.D. Act filed for intervention in the proceeding and for exempting the property of M/s. Hitech Estate and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. as per schedule from attachment, sale and consequently permit for execution of sale deed and transfer of such property in their favour.
2. It is the case of the appellants, as per the objection petition filed before the Designated Court under section 9(3) of the O.P.I.D. Act that they came to know that the State of Odisha, represented through A.D.M. -cum-Competent Authority, Cuttack has filed an application against M/s. Hitech Estate and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and others under section 4(3) of the O.P.I.D. Act for making the ad-interim order of attachment passed by the Government in respect of schedule properties absolute and for a direction to sell the properties so attached by public auction and to realize the sale proceeds. It is the further case of the appellants that as per agreement executed in between the opposite party no.1 i.e. M/s. Hitech Estate and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and the appellants in the year 2014, the immovable property as mentioned against Sl. No.1 under the schedule of properties of M/s. Hitech Group of Company and Trust has 3 already been dealt with by the company for transferring the same in favour of the appellants and substantial amount of advance money has already been paid by the appellants to the opposite party no.1 to meet their financial crisis. Thus, there has already been creation of charge over the said immovable property mentioned in serial no.1 of the opposite party no.1 in favour of the charge-holder appellants. It is the further case of the appellants that at the time of presentation of the draft sale deed sought for registration/execution before the Sub-Registrar, Berhampur, it was not accepted by the Sub-Registrar and no registration was allowed. It is the further case of the appellants that this Court had quashed the letter dated 22.05.2013 of the Superintendent of Police, CID, CB, E.O.W., State of Odisha addressed to Sub-Registrar, Jatni requesting that no sale/transfer of the properties of the opposite parties-company, its Director, is to be made without his clearance, holding that there was no impediment for the Sub-Registrar to deny the registration inasmuch as it was necessary for the opposite parties-company to sale their properties to augment funds to deposit before the Registrar of the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is the further case of the appellants that the property mentioned in Sl. No.1 under the schedule of the application filed by the Competent Authority has been made under an ad-interim order 4 of attachment by the Government of Odisha, Finance Department under Order No.1007 dated 12.01.2017 though there has already been creation of charge of the objectors (appellants) over such property since 2014 by virtue of the agreement. It is the further case of the appellants that there has already been an agreement between the parties on dated 28.06.2014 in pursuance of which the sale deed was drafted and presented for registration. It is the further case of the appellants that Sri Madhusudan Panigrahi has been duly authorized by the Director as per Board resolution dated 07.04.2015 and accordingly, he has signed the drafted sale deed dated 24.01.2017. It is the further case of the appellants that they have already paid the entire consideration money amounting to Rs. 72,00,000/- (rupees seventy two lakhs) to the opposite party no.1 inclusive of the advance consideration
