TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (3) TMI 1035
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment liability was granted and against that, the PICUP granted "interest-free trade tax deferment loan " to UPAL for the periods 1996-97 to 1999-2000. The properties were mortgaged and the second charge was created by the UPAL on all their movable and immovable assets, like assets of asbestos and cement unit. UPAL sold its cement unit situate at Mohanlalganj, Lucknow to M/s. U.P. Cement Limited (in short, "the UPCL") after obtaining due permission from PICUP with the rider that second charge on the property of UPAL shall continue with PICUP and the UPCL shall not claim benefit of the deferment loan for the period subsequent to the sale of cement unit to UPCL in terms of original agreement between the UPAL and the PICUP. Subject to the above condition, a Memorandum of Understanding (in short, the MOU) was executed between the UPAL and UPCL. The cement unit of UPAL was sold to UPCL for Rs. 400 lakhs. Out of the sale consideration, Rs. 275 lakhs of balance amount of the term loan along with interest from the date of transfer of loan, was agreed to be paid by the UPCL to Industrial Development Bank of India (in short, the IDBI). The balance of amount of Rs. 125 lakhs was agreed to be p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o to execute the sale deed of cement unit and get it registered in favour of UPCL. The PICUP also directed for adjustment of availed loan amount in the balance of sale consideration and also directed to pay the remaining amount to the PICUP. The Principal Secretary, Trade Tax and Registration (PST and R) had granted permission by means of his letter dated January 11, 2001 permitting the transfer of liability of UPAL in favour of the UPCL. In consequence thereof, a sale deed dated June 22, 2001 was executed by the UPAL in favour of UPCL transferring Khasra Plot No. 1251 Ka (part) and Khasra Plot No. 1252 Ka (part) situate at village Mau Tahsil Mohanlalganj, Lucknow. The total area transferred by the registered sale-deed was seven acres. The Managing Director UPCL vide his letter dated June 25, 2001, affirmed that the sale deed of land, plant and machinery has been executed and registered in their favour. He also affirmed that the balance amount of sale consideration amounting to Rs. 175.82 lakhs has been adjusted in the sale consideration and the balance amount of Rs. 64.73 lakhs has been received by cheque subject to encashment (total Rs. 240.55 lakhs). It was also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....June 15/17, 2002. While filing the connected Writ Petition No. 6345 (M/B) of 2002, the UPCL concealed agreement dated July 5, 2001 (supra) entered into between the UPCL and the PICUP. The PICUP filed a short counter-affidavit on October 24, 2002 in Writ Petition No. 6345 (M/B) of 2002 along with a copy of agreement dated July 5, 2001 as well as the letter dated June 25, 2001 (supra) written by P. Kumar, the Managing Director by UPCL, admitting liability towards trade tax deferment. The District Administration in pursuance of the recovery certificate dated August 1, 2002 took over the possession of cement factory and gave it in the supurdgi of Sri P. Kumar who happens to be the Managing Director of UPCL. The Writ Petition No. 6345 (M/B) of 2002 was heard by the Division Bench on February 19, 2003. The learned counsel for the UPCL admitted their liability and assured the payment of amount in instalment. Hence the Division Bench of this court directed the UPCL to deposit Rs. 30 lakhs within one month and provided that the possession of factory shall he handed over to UPCL immediately after the amount of Rs. 30 lakhs is deposited. It was also provided that the amount of Rs. 30....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....another fourth Writ Petition No. 3877 (M/B) of 2003 before the Division Bench of this court against the recovery notice dated July 14, 2003. However, the Division Bench, vide order dated July 28, 2003 had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the interim order passed in earlier pending writ petition, was not complied with. The court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow (Custom), had issued non-bailable warrant on January 28, 2005 against Shri P. Kumar in the criminal case. In the meantime, the Board of Management of UPCL passed a resolution dated March 4, 2005 authorising Sri P. Kumar, Managing Director of the company, to sell the property on behalf of the company. Under the authorisation by the Board of the Management, Sri P. Kumar Managing Director of the company had executed two sale deeds dated March 9, 2005 in favour of his own wife Smt. Mamta Sinha who also happens to be the Director of UPCL, by concealing her identity in the sale deed. In the sale deed, Smt. Mamta Sinha has been shown as daughter of Sri Girish Prasad. The husband's identity has been concealed. No information was communicated to PICUP by Sri P. Kumar with regard to the sale d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for movable property was Rs. 19,50,000 whereas for immovable property it was Rs. 11,00,00,000. The bid in favour of M/s. R.D. Cement was finalised on September 25, 2007 and the entire sale amount was deposited by M/s. R.D. Cement by bankers cheque of Rs. 16,50,000 and in cash to the tune of Rs. 3,10,000, totalling Rs. 19,60,000. For movable property, M/s. R.D. Cement deposited 25 per cent of bid amount, i.e., Rs. 27,50,000 by means of bankers cheque amounting to Rs. 25,000 and in cash Rs. 2,50,000. The District Administration had adjusted security amount deposited by M/s. R.D. Cement on September 25, 2007. M/s. R.D. Cement had deposited remaining 75 per cent amount on October 8, 2007 (within 15 days by means of bankers cheque of Rs. 60 lakhs, Rs. 20 lakhs and in cash Rs. 2,50,000) (total Rs. 82,50,000). However, the Revenue authorities have not confirmed the sale under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. Instead, by the impugned order dated October 28, 2007, cancelled the auction and sale held in favour of M/s. R.D. Cement on the ground of insufficiency of amount. Hence M/s. R.D. Cement had filed Writ Petition No. 9080 (M/B) of 2007. Liability of deferr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovided while issuing an order under section 8(2A) of the Trade Tax Act. On the other hand, Sri V.R. Singh learned counsel for the PICUP, invited attention to the letter dated June 25, 2001 of the petitioner sent to the PICUP, which reveals that the petitioner has accepted the transfer of full loan of Rs. 240.55 lakhs from UPAL to itself and held responsible for its repayment along with its compliance and commitment as per scheme. Parties have signed an agreement dated July 5, 2001 for transfer of interestfree loan in lieu of tax deferment scheme. The agreement has been signed by UPAL, and the UPCL. A perusal of para 8 of the agreement shows that the UPCL owes liability to pay the deferred tax. A perusal of sale deed dated June 2, 2002 executed by UPAL in favour of the petitioner UPCL also reveals that the purchaser owes the liability of deferred tax. In view of subsequent events which include the agreement (supra), it appears that the petitioner UPCL owes the liability to pay the deferred tax. The statement given on behalf of the petitioner along with affidavit to pay the balance dues of deferred tax, establishes the fact that the petitioner UPCL owes liability to pay t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the amount is to be paid within fifteen days from the date of sale. Rule 285F provides that sale proceeds are less than the price bid by such defaulting purchaser, the difference shall be recoverable from him as if it were an arrears of the land revenue. Rule 285G provides that no sale after postponement under rule 285A, 285D or 285E in default of payment of the purchase money shall be made until a fresh proclamation is issued as prescribed for the original sale. Rule 285H empowers the borrower to deposit the entire amount under auction and sale before expiry of 30 days from the date of sale and on deposit of such amount, the Collector shall pass an order setting aside the sale. Under rule 285I, against the auction and sale so taken, to recover the arrears of land revenue, the aggrieved party has right to file objection before the Commissioner who may set aside the auction and sale on finding the material irregularity. For convenience, rules 285A, 285B, 285C, 285D, 285E, 285F, 285G, 285H and 285I, are reproduced as under: "285A. Every sale under sections 284 and 286 shall be made either by the Collector in person or by an Assistant Collector specially appointed by him in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iginal sale. 285H. (1) Any person whose holding or other immovable property has been sold under the Act may, at any time within thirty days from the date of sale, apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in the Collector's office- (a) for payment to the purchaser, a sum equal to five per cent of the purchase-money; and (b) for payment on account of the arrear, the amount specified in the proclamation in Z. A. form 74 as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered, less any amount which may, since the date of such proclamation of sale, have been paid on that account; and (c) the costs of the sale. On the making of such deposit, the Collector shall pass an order setting aside the sale: Provided that if a person applies under rule 285-I to set aside such sale he shall not be entitled to make an application under this rule. 285-I. (i) Any time within thirty days from the date of the sale, application may be made to the Commission to set aside the sale on the ground of some material irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting it; but no sale shall be set aside on such ground unless the applicant proves to the satisfaction of the Commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....papers along with estimated cost of the property and only after confirmation of sale, the purchaser will hold the rights over the property. The appeal preferred against the aforesaid judgment of this court, was dismissed by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Swadeshi Polytex Limited reported in [2008] 12 SCC 596. The honourable Supreme Court while upholding the judgment of this court, held that valuation of property is of utmost importance and it is designed to ensure the best price of the property and it is essential in these circumstances that wide publication and notice of the proposed sale, should be given. It has also been held that the auction purchaser shall deposit 25 per cent of the bid immediately in cash. Payment by cheque or pay order shall make the auction and sale invalid. In the present case, the power to auction the property has been given to Collector or Assistant Collector of First Class. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who is Assistant Collector of First Class, authorised the Naib Tahsildar Mohanlalganj, to auction the property. On the date of auction, the Naib Tahsildar Mohanlalganj proceeded on leave and in the present case,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition No. 6 of the tender notice provided for confirmation of auction. In absence of confirmation of sale in terms of condition No. 6 and also in absence of any malice and mala fide on the part of the respondents, it is not a fit case where this court may exercise power of extraordinary judicial review. Sub-Divisional Magistrate delegated power to Naib Tahsildar, Mohanlalganj but auction was taken place under the supervision of Naib Tahsildar, Gosainganj on September 25, 2007 to whom, the power was not delegated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Naib Tahsildar, Gosainganj, was the only link officer. The submission made by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel seems to have got weight. However, appointment of an officer of the rank of Assistant Collector should have been done by the Collector of the District under rule 285A, not by Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The latin phrase, "delegatus non potest delegare", means a delegate cannot delegate. In Huth v. Clarke [1890] 25 QBD 391, it was held that person to whom an office or duty is delegated, cannot lawfully devolve the duty upon another unless he be expressly authorised to do so. In the present case, the Naib Tahsil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the case of Sheo Kumar v. State of U.P. reported in [2008] 2 AWC 1117. Moreover in the present case, the auction and sale seems to have not been done in accordance with the judgment of this court and the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Swadeshi Polytex Limited [2008] 12 SCC 596. The auction and sale could have been done only by the Collector or the Assistant Collector appointed by him. Accordingly, the cancellation of auction and sale to proceed afresh, seems to be based on substantial illegality. Though the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated October 22, 2007, is not much happily worded but while interfering with the matter under article 226 of the Constitution of India for judicial interpretation, this court is not precluded to consider and take into account the material on record while adjudicating the controversy particularly, when there is jurisdictional error. Chapter II of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, defines the Collector, Assistant Collector and Tahsildar. Section 14 provides that there shall be Collector of the district who shall exercise all such powers and discharge all duties conferred and imposed on Collector by this Act or any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duties of an Assistant Collector-in-charge of a sub-division of a district in such cases or classes of cases as the State Government may direct. (5) The provisions of this Act and of every other law for the time being applicable to a Sub-Divisional Officer shall apply to every Additional Sub-Divisional Officer when exercising any powers or discharging any duties under sub-section (4) as if he were a SubDivisional Officer. (6) The State Government may delegate powers under this section to the Collector of the district and may revoke such delegation. 19.. Subordination of Revenue Officers.-Every Revenue Officer of a sub-division of a district shall be subordinate to the Assistant Collector (if any) incharge of such sub-division, subject to the general control of the Collector." In view of the above, the posts of Assistant Collector, Tahsildar and Naib-Tahsildar, are different posts with different duties and every revenue officer of the sub-division, shall be subordinate to Assistant Collector who happens to be the incharge of the sub-division. The Rules (supra) empower the Collector to supervise the auction and sale of property while proceeding to recover the dues as arrears....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... functions of Collector under the Act. Rule 285A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, empowers the Collector in person or Assistant Collector specifically appointed by him in this behalf, to hold auction and sale proceeding. A plain reading of rule 285A provides that only those Assistant Collector shall be empowered to hold auction and sale proceeding, who has been authorised by the Collector. The purpose of delegation of power conferred by rule 285A is to delegate the power to an Officer who is occupying the status of an Assistant Collector. A combined reading of definition of "Collector" provided in U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act read with rule 285A, seems to delegation of the power to Assistant Collector of First Class. It shall not cover the Assistant Collector, Second Class, i.e., Naib Tahsildar. Sub-section (4) of section 3 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act specifically provides that the Collector shall include an Assistant Collector of First Class empowered by the State Government by notification in the Gazette. Admittedly, the State Government by notification (supra), empowers the Tahsildars to work as Assistant Col....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onfer power under the Act empowering persons by name or class or office and may vary or cancel such order. In view of the finding of the Board of Revenue, the Assistant Collector of Second Class either he or she, may discharge only those duties which have been assigned to him under the Act or Rules, and in absence of any provisions contained in the Rules, such person will have no right to discharge such duty. The Collector or Assistant Collector cannot delegate power to Naib Tahsildar to hold the auction and sale proceeding under rule 285A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. The power vesting in the Collector or Assistant Collector under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder, cannot be delegated to other authorities or Naib Tahsildars in the absence of specific provisions with regard to it. While assailing the impugned citation of recovery, learned counsel for the auction purchaser stated that since no objection was filed under rule 285I of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, the sale shall be deemed to be confirmed. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh reported in AIR 1967 SC 608, Ashwin S. Mehta v. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion and sale are complete, and the applicants are bona fide purchasers in duly concluded sales, stands on different panorama. The bona fide purchaser in an auction and sale for certain purposes is like a decree holder who came to purchase under his own decree and bona fide purchaser who came in and got at the sale in execution of a decree, to which he was not a party. Where a third party is a bona fide auction purchaser, even if a decree is set aside, his interest in auction is saved (para 329). The ratio of the judgment seems to be not applicable in the present case as the provisions contained in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and Rules framed thereunder, have not been considered. In the case of Janatha Textiles [2008] 301 ITR 337 (SC); [2008] 12 SCC 582 the controversy relates to auction and sale during the execution proceedings. The judgment seems to be not applicable under the facts and circumstances of the present case. While relying upon the judgment in Kayjay Industries (Private) Limited. v. Asnew Drums Private Limited reported in [1974] 2 SCC 213, Shri Radhey Shyam v. Shyam Behari Singh [1970] 2 SCC 405, Abdul Wahid v. Additional Commissioner, Meerut ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 and auction was held only on September 25, 2007, before expiry of 30 days, it shall not be fatal and the auction shall not be invalid. It is a minor error and it will not affect the auction proceeding. However, the submission of Sri Prashant Chandra, seems to be not sustainable in view of settled proposition of law that the provisions contained in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, have got mandatory force (vide Swadeshi Polytex [2008] 12 SCC 596. It has further been argued that the petitioner deposited the entire dues lastly, on October 23, 2007 and since no objection was filed, the same shall be deemed to be confirmed under rule 285K. Though, no objection was filed by any person against the impugned auction and sale, but it shall not preclude the competent authority/Collector to ensure the compliance with statutory provisions while taking decision with regard to confirmation of sale. Rule 285-I, empowers the affected or aggrieved party to file objection before the Divisional Commissioner. The rule does not contain or define the power of confirming authority. The authority possessing power to pass order under rule 285A, appointing an Assistant Coll....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Sri Prashant Chandra, seems to be not sustainable. Moreover, the Constitution Bench of the honourable Supreme Court in the case Bombay Salt and Chemical Industries v. L.J. Johnson reported in AIR 1958 SC 289, held that the declaration with regard to higher bidder at the auction, does not amount to complete sale and transfer of property. It requires approval by the competent authority. To quote relevant portion: "(10) It is clear from the rules and the conditions of sale set out above that the declaration that a person was the highest bidder at the auction does not amount to a complete sale and transfer of the property to him. The fact that the bid has to be approved by the Settlement Commissioner shows that till such approval which the Commissioner is not bound to give, the auction-purchaser has no right at all. It would further appear that even the approval of the bid by the Settlement Commissioner does not amount to a transfer of property for the purchaser has yet to pay the balance of the purchase money and the rules provide that if he fails to do that he shall not have any claim to the property. The correct position is that on the approval of the bid by the Settlement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re as to require intervention by the court. In Tata Cellular's case [1994] 6 SCC 651, while considering the power of judicial review, the honourable Supreme court observed as under: "70. It cannot be denied that the principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. However, it must be clearly stated that there are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review. Government is the guardian of the finances of the State. It is expected to protect the financial interest of the State. The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the Government. But, the principles laid down in article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view while accepting or refusing a tender. There can be no question of infringement of article 14 if the Government tries to get the best person or the best quotation. The right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary power. Of course, if the said power is exercised for any collateral purpose the exercise of that power will be struck down. 71.. Judicial quest in administrative matters has been to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 'It is true, that the judgment and discretion of determining upon this skill, ability, learning and sufficiency to exercise and practise this profession is trusted to the college of physicians and this court will not take it from them, nor interrupt them in the due and proper exercise of it. But their conduct in the exercise of this trust thus committed to them ought to be fair, candid and unprejudiced; not arbitrary, capricious, or biased; much less, warped by resentment, or personal dislike'." Their Lordships further proceeded to observe (supra) as under: "80. At this stage, The Supreme Court Practice, 1993, Vol. 1, pages 849-850, may be quoted: '4. Wednesbury principle.-A decision of a public authority will be liable to be quashed or otherwise dealt with by an appropriate order in judicial review proceedings where the court concludes that the decision is such that no authority properly directing itself on the relevant law and acting reasonably could have reached it. (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn. [1948] 1 KB 223; [1947] 2 All ER 680, per Lord Greene, M.R.)' 81.. Two other facets of irrationality may be mentioned. (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C); [2008] 9 SCC 299, the honourable Supreme Court discussed the two modes of auction; viz., where auction is not subject to subsequent confirmation and where auction is subject to confirmation of authority after the auction is held. It has been held that auction shall not be complete unless sale is confirmed. No right accrues unless sale is confirmed by the competent authority. However, once sale is confirmed, some right may accrue which ordinarily may not extinguish except in exceptional case like fraud or collusion, etc. The honourable Supreme Court in the case of FCS Software Solutions Ltd. v. LA Medical Devices Limited reported in [2008] 144 Comp Cas 391 (SC); [2008] 10 SCC 440, observed that auction and sale of a property should be done in such a manner to get highest price so as to satisfy the maximum claims against the company under liquidation. In Ganpati RV-Talleres Alegria Track Private Limited. v. Union of India [2009] 1 SCC 589, the honourable Supreme Court had reiterated the law laid down in earlier judgment of the case in New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India reported in [1995] 1 SCC 478, and observed that decision taken by the evaluation committee which is exper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso been stated that the PICUP cannot realise the tax liability. He submits that under section 33 of the Trade Tax Act only the Trade Tax Department can realise the tax liability. Submission of Sri I.B. Singh learned senior counsel, does not seem to be sustainable. The number of documents and agreement referred to in the preceding paras and the overwhelming evidence on record establish that the UPCL, has itself owned the tax liability by entering into the agreement. Whether the liability so owned by the UPCL, is valid or not, cannot be looked into at this stage under writ jurisdiction more so when the UPCL, has not approached the appropriate forum challenging the tax liability. Any wrong order/decision may operate unless it is set aside by a competent forum or court, vide State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann [1997] 3 SCC 321. The UPCL, had approached this court for the first time by preferring Writ Petition No. 6345 (M/B) of 2002, challenging the notice dated June 15, 2002 sent by PICUP to pay trade tax deferment liability in terms of agreement entered into with PICUP and consequential demand notice dated October 3, 2002 issued under ZA forms 68 and 69 for Rs. 2,50,35,995. Even....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the power to Naib Tahsildar. In any case, the Naib Tahsildar is not competent to hold auction and sale proceeding under the statutory provisions. Only the Assistant Collector, First Class appointed by the Collector may hold the auction and sale proceeding. (iii) The provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules have got statutory force in view of the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in Swadeshi Polytex Limited [2008] 12 SCC 596. It is mandatory to publish the estimated cost of property in two widely circulated newspapers and the auction and sale may be held with 30 days clear notice and 25 per cent of the auction money must be deposited in cash in compliance with Rules. Non-compliance with Rules, makes the auction and sale illegal and void. In the present case, the auction and sale was not held in accordance with statutory provisions; hence, it suffers from substantial illegality and is liable to be set aside. (iv) In the absence of specific pleading and challenge to original order/decision and the agreement, the UPCL, cannot shirk from its liability to pay tax. Transfer of property during pendency of writ petition As discus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pendency of proceeding. The intervenor being a transferee pendente lite without leave of the court shall be bound by a final outcome of the present writ petition. As settled by the honourable Supreme Court in a case Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hassan Saheb reported in [2004] 1 SCC 191, the petitioner who was the respondent in appeal should not have transferred a portion of property during the pendency of present proceeding. The alienation of property shall be hit by doctrine of lis pendens by operation of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The honourable Supreme Court in the case of Bibi Zubaida Khatoon [2004] 1 SCC 191 had relied upon the earlier judgment of apex court and proceeded to held as under: 'In the case of Dhurandhar Prasad Singh [2001] 6 SCC 534 observations relevant for the purpose of these appeals read thus: (SCC pages 541-42, para 7) Where a party does not ask for leave, he takes the obvious risk that the suit may not be properly conducted by the plaintiff on record, yet he will be bound by the result of the litigation even though he is not represented at the hearing unless it is shown that the litigation was not properly conducted by the original....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on shall remain under attachment but shall not be sold nor the petitioner's right of functioning and carrying on business in the factory shall be obstructed on the ground that the factory is under attachment and the petitioner shall not sell or alienate the property in question including the plant and machinery and shall keep it in proper running condition." In spite of the fact that the interim order is continuing, the Board of the petitioner UPCL, vide its resolution dated March 4, 2005, authorised its Managing Director Sri P. Kumar to sell the property on behalf of the company. In consequence of the authority extended by the Board, Sri P. Kumar executed sale deed on March 9, 2005 in the name of his own wife Smt. Mamta Sinha. Smt. Mamta Sinha happens to be the Director in UPCL. Her identity was concealed and instead of husband's name, her father's name was shown as daughter of Sri Girish Prasad. It has been stated that transaction through sale deed dated March 9, 2005 not came to the knowledge of PICUP. Rather, Smt. Mamta Sinha taken loan from Allahabad Bank mortgaging the property so acquired though, the property was already mortgaged with PICUP and the charge ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pliance with interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 6345 (M/B) of 2002, the honourable single judge of this court had declined to grant any interim relief and petition is pending. Writ Petition No. 3204 (M/B) of 2003 was filed by UPCL for quashing auction notice dated May 28, 2003. In this case also, the Division Bench had declined to grant relief. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner UPCL had filed successive writ petitions challenging the auction proceeding and failing to achieve its object, had filed regular suit and obtained ex parte injunction which was later on, vacated. Thus, the petitioner UPCL approached the civil court as well as this court with uncleaned hands concealing the material facts, and has abused the process of law. The repeated filing of writ petitions in this court against the auction and sale proceeding, the transfer of property in violation of interim order of this court, the concealment of fact with regard to pending of writ petition while filing the R.S. No. 27/2004 and concealment of fact in this court with regard to filing of regular suit, shows a clandestine effort on the part of the UPCL, to abuse of process of law and makes out a case f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh [2000] 3 SCC 581, their Lordships of the honourable Supreme Court observed to quote: "'Fraud and justice never dwell together' (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. . ." In the case Smt. Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Brothers reported in AIR 1992 SC 1555, the honourable Supreme Court observed as under: "Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. . ." In a recent judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. reported in [2010] AIR SCW 50, their Lordships after considering earlier judgment, has deprecated the conduct of such litigants who approach the court by concealing material facts. It shall be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment of Dalip Singh [2010] AIR SCW 50: "9. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited [2008] 12 SCC 481; [2008] AIR SCW 6654, the court held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under article 32 and of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitutio....