2011 (6) TMI 751

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7,303.60, and for direction to make the continuance of the payment with a statutory charge in respect of the property measuring 18125 sq.ft. or 41.62 cents situated in Plot No.49 and also the property measuring 19760 sq.ft. or 45.36 cents situated in plot No.81 in Survey No.70(P) of Karai Village, Walajah Taluk, Vellore District, preventing from alienating the same. 2. The said plot Nos. 49 and 81 situated in SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ranipet, originally belonged to one M/s. Industries and Chemical Ltd., when the bank took action against the said M/s. Industries and Chemical Ltd., under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (in short, "SARFAESI Act") in respect of failure and repa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the property under public auction for ₹ 28 lakhs from the Bank in exercise of its powers under the SARFAESI Act as a bona fide purchaser and therefore, the impugned order is illegal; that the petitioner has purchased the property from the first respondent Bank, has taken possession of the property on 18.06.2006, which is long before the attachment order stated to have been issued by the second respondent on 14.3.2007 and proclamation issued on 21.3.2007; that the said attachment order or proclamation was not recorded by the Sub Registrar, Walajahpet and that the petitioner being the bona fide purchaser, his right cannot be obstructed. 3. The second respondent having been served notice, has not chosen to appear, nor filed any counter ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re, according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order of the second respondent in effecting attachment and making claim from the petitioner is not valid in law. 5. On facts, it is clear that the petitioners purchase under SARFAESI Act from the first respondent Bank was on 14.06.2007, when the Bank by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, has brought the property for sale and executed the certificate of sale. In the sale certificate, which has been registered with the Registrar, who has been sought to be impleaded by way of application by the petitioner, it is specifically stated that there is no encumbrance, and therefore, it has to be presumed that the petitioner being the pu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gaged assets on 15.2.2005 and sold the same. On 11.7.2005, the officers of the Commercial Tax Department informed the bank about outstanding dues of sales tax amounting to ₹ 3,62,82,768. The Assistant Commissioner issued notice under Section 39 of the Bombay Act for recovery of ₹ 48,48,614.35 of the Securitisation Act does not have overriding effect over Section 33-C of the Bombay Act." 8. While upholding the stand that the claim of arrears of sales tax will prevail over the claim of secured creditors like, Bank since the Government will have first charge over the property by construing the TNGST Act, 1959 a Division Bench of this Court in A. Senthil Kumar vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Koyambedu Assessment Circle, Chenn....