IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, VIKAS BUDHWAR, JJ.
Palika Towns LLP – Appellant
Versus
State Of U P And 2 Others – Respondent
CIVIL MISC. WRIT (C ) PETITION No. - 10123 of 2021
Decided on : 27-05-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 229,226 and 12 - U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 - Section 3 read with Section 2(d) - Transfer of Property Act 1882 - Sections 3 and 55 1 (g) - Companies Act - Section 537 and 433 - Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 269UE(1) - Electricity (Supply) Act - Sections 49 and 56 - Karnataka Sales Tax Act (1957) - Section 15 (1) - Limited Liability Partnership Act 2008 - 12 (I) - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 7 - Allotted a commercial - Partnership firm - Alchemist Assets Reconstruction - Liquidator made a public announcement - Petition are that petitioner claims itself to be a Partnership firm registered u/s 12 (I) of Limited Liability Partnership Act 2008 with Government of India Ministry of Corporate Affairs having its registered office South Court Saket - Pleadings set forth in petition one Moser Baer India Private was allotted a commercial plot square meters at Greater NOIDA, District by respondent no. 2 Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority - Reveals that initially the lease deed was executed - Between GNIDA on one part and Corporate Debtor on the other part setting out terms and the conditions (covenants) of the leased land in question.
Finding of the Court: Transfer Memorandum executed between petitioner (auction purchaser) and GNIDA as well as Sale Certificate itself creates contractual obligation upon the petitioner to honor commitments and to discharge obligations so embodied in the lease deed and subsequent lease deeds for the payment of past lease rentals and interest - GNIDA being principal lessor has paramount interest over demised land put to auction and it has legal as well as contractual right to raise demand of out standing arrears of lease rentals and interest - High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot by a judicial fiat creates a podium to facilitate avoidance of agreements while wriggling out from contractual obligations so embodied.
Result: Writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Manu Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 (Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority) and Smt. Subhash Rathi, learned Standing Counsel who appears for the State.
EPILOGUE
2. Factual matrix of the case as worded in the present petition are that the petitioner claims itself to be a Partnership firm registered u/s 12 (I) of Limited Liability Partnership Act 2008 with Government of India Ministry of Corporate Affairs having its registered office at D.S.C.- 319 DLF South Court Saket New Delhi 110017. As per the pleadings set forth in the petition one Moser Baer India Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred as Corporate Debtor) was allotted a commercial plot no. 66 admeasuring 2,70,201 square meters at Udyog Vihar Greater NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar by the respondent no. 2 Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred as GNIDA) for a period 90 years. Record further reveals that initially the lease deed was executed on 26.06.2001 between GNIDA on one part and Corporate Debtor on the other part setting out the terms and the conditions (covenants) of the leased land in question. It is further pleaded in the petition that an application purported to be u/s 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (hereinafter referred to as IBC Code) was instituted by a Financial Creditor being M/s Alchemist Assets Reconstruction Company Limited bearing no. I.B.378 (P.B.) 2017 for initiating Insolvency Resolution Process against Carporate Debtor. The said application was admitted on 14.11.2017 by National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and one Mr. Debendra Singh was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred to as IRP).
3. Eventually, NCLT by virtue of its order dated 20.09.2018 allowed the application preferred by IRP u/s 33(2) IBC Code while order ding Liquidation of Coroprate Debtor. In furthrance thereof the Liquidator made a public announcement on 24.09.2018 under Regulation 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Lilquidation Process) Regulation 2016 (hereinafter referred as to 2016 Regulation) inviting claims owed and due to Corporate Debtor giving details and description of the assets of Corporate Debtor such as location of the land and buildings so constructed thereon along with the plant and machinery embodied thereon. An advertisement/sale notice of the assets of the Corporate Debtor was published on 08.03.2019 by the Liquidator wherein not only details and description of the assets including the land and the buildings was mentioned which was put to auction but reserve price of auction being bieng 145.67 crores and the earnest money to be deposited being 14.57 crores was also reflected. The petitioner as per its own showing, participated in the auction so conducted and the bid of the petitioner was found to be commensurate to the expectation of the Liquidator. Consequently, the NCLT accepted the offer of the petitioner on 16.07.2019 and the petitioner thereafter received the acceptance letter dated 16.07.2019 of the Liquidator. According to the petitioner, full and final payment of Rs. 145.75 crores was made by it and on 11.09.2019 and a Certificate of Sale under Regulation 33 of 2016 Regulation was issued in favour of the petitioner. Consequent to the issuence of the sale certificate on 11.09.2019 the petitioner approached GNIDA on 30.01.2020 followed on 11.09.2020 for issuance of Transfer Memorandum. It has come on record that on 11.09.2020 GNIDA corresponded with the Liquidator claming arrears of past lease rentals of Rs. 4,71,40,620/- as
R.K. Mittal and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2012 (2) SCC 232
Al Champdandy Industries Limited vs. Official Liquidator and Another reported in (2009) 4 SCC 486
Rana Girders Limited vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 746
State of Karnataka and Another vs. Shreyas Papers (P) Ltd. And Others reported in (2006) 1 SCC 615
Union Bank Of India Vs. Official Liquidator and Others reported in 1994 (1) SCC 575
Phatu Rochiram Mulchandani Vs. Karnataka Industrial Area reported in 2015 (5) SCC 244
M/s. Hanuman Silks v. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Union Bank of India reported in 2016 (2) SCC 757
Sahebzada Mohammad Kamgarh Shah Vs. Jagdish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb and Others
Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. DVS Steels & Alloys Pvt.Ltd. [2009 (1) SCC 210]
R.N. Gosain vs. Yashpal Dhir reported in (1992) 4 SCC 683
Shyam Telelink Limited vs. Union of India
Cauvery Coffee Traders, Mangalore vs. Hornor Resources (International) Company Limited
Nagubai Ammal & Ors. v. B. Shama Rao & Ors.
P.R. Deshpande v. Maruti Balaram Haibatti
Chairman and MD, NTPC Ltd. v. Reshmi Constructions, Builders & Contractors
Ramesh Chandra Sankla & Ors. v. Vikram Cement & Ors.
Pradeep Oil Corporation v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.
Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple and another vs. Meenakshi Ammal and others
M/s Radhakrishna Agarwal and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 1977 (3) SCC 457
Divisional Forest Officer vs. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd. reported in 1981 (3) SCC 238
State of Orissa vs. Narain Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1997 S.C. 1493
Orissa State Financial Corporation vs. Narsingh Ch. Nayak And Others reported in 2003 (10) SCC 261
Bareilly Development Authority & Anr. v. Ajay Pal Singh & Ors.
State of U.P. & Ors. v. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd.
Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Kurien E. Kalathil & Ors.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal
Polymat India P. Ltd. & Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
DLF Universal Ltd. & Anr. v. Director, T. and C. Planning Department Haryana & Ors.
Suganmal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amravati & Ors.
Auction purchasers are liable for outstanding property tax under statutory first charge, with obligations for pre-acquisition dues as part of 'as is where is' sale terms.
An auction purchaser is not liable to pay the arrears of electricity dues of the erstwhile owner when the purchaser has bought the land free from encumbrances. The demand for late payment surcharge m....
Point of law: refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner under protest, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount was deposited under protest in order to get the matter exp....
The auction purchaser is liable for the previous owner's electricity dues under the U.P. Electricity Supply Code 2005, as the statutory provisions impose a duty to verify such dues.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Surat Municipal Corporation cannot claim any first charge or precedence over the subject property for recovering property tax arrears, as ....
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.