TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to delivery of possession of the unit purchased in a statutory sale under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1956; (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest at 24% per annum on the deposit amount from 31-3-1992 till delivery of possession.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to delivery of possession of the unit purchased in a statutory sale under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1956.
Analysis: The sale had been confirmed in favour of the petitioner and the deposit was made in terms of the sale conditions. Once the statutory sale was confirmed, there was no justification for withholding possession. The excise department could not prevent delivery of possession by acting against the selling corporation, though it was open to proceed against the purchaser in accordance with law if any liability was otherwise enforceable.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to delivery of possession.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest at 24% per annum on the deposit amount from 31-3-1992 till delivery of possession.
Analysis: The claim for interest arose out of the sale arrangement and was purely contractual in nature. No material was shown to establish any statutory obligation on the part of the selling corporation to pay such interest, and the writ court would not adjudicate that claim under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to interest in writ jurisdiction.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only to the extent of securing delivery of possession of the unit, while the claim for interest was declined.
Ratio Decidendi: In a writ proceeding, possession following confirmation of a statutory sale can be directed to be delivered, but a purely contractual claim for interest without a statutory basis is not enforceable under writ jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
