2014 (2) TMI 1305

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se appeals the appellants- original petitioners in both the appeals challenge the order(s) of the competent authority of provisional attachment bearing No. 2/2012, Dated : 15.03.2012, as well as order(s) of the adjudicating Authority, Dated : 10.07.2012, confirming the aforesaid order. 4. The brief facts of the case of the original petitioner in SCA No.4171 of 2012, as set out before the learned Single Judge, reads as under; "3.1 The facts of the case, as per the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.4171 of 2012, are as under. 3.2 In the year 1990 the respondent Nos.6 and 7 purchased the subject plot of land from its erstwhile owners and thereafter constructed a bungalow on it. The respondent Nos.6 and 7 were therefore joint owners of the subject property known as 'Jay Bungalow'. That from 1997, the respondent No.5 availed of financial assistance from a consortium of banks led by State Bank of India. The respondent Nos.6 and 7 mortgaged the subject property for securing the same. That in the year 1998 Punjab National Bank joined this consortium by sanctioning facilities of Rs. 26.50 crore to respondent no.5 and subsequently, during 2005-06 Punjab National Bank s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... being carried out against respondent No.5 and its Director Pradipbhai under the PML Act and that the subject property and other properties were the subject matter of further investigation and asking the Joint Sub-Registrar not to allow transfer/sale of any of the properties without prior approval of the Directorate of Enforcement. It is the case of the petitioner that unaware of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner entered into an Agreement to Sale on 24.10.2011 with one Smt. Khushaliben G. Khatri in respect of the subject property which was registered. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that, in the case of another property known as 'Vishal House' belonging to the respondent No.5, which was put up for sale through public auction, when the auction purchaser of Vishal House tried to subsequently sell the property, the Joint Sub-Registrar, SRO, Ahmedabad3 refused to register the Sale Deed on the pretext that he was restrained in view of letter dated 21.7.2011 of the respondent No.3 and that a petition is filed by the purchasers of Vishal House seeking a direction to the Joint Sub- Registrar to register the Sale Deed of Vishal House. In the circumstances, the proposed purc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Security Interest Act, 2002. On 27.08.2009 the said property was put to auction/sale under SARFAESI Act which was purchased by one M/s. JMD Media Pvt. Ltd. and on 05.09.2009 sale certificate and original title deeds as well as peaceful possession were handed over to JMD Media Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter in October, 2010 petitioners came to know of inclination of M/s. JMD Media Pvt. Ltd. and owners of other three units of the said properties to sell the same. A sum of Rs. 6 lakhs was initially paid to M/s. JMD Media Pvt. Ltd. on 31.12.2010 and on 28.03.2011 sale deed pertaining to aforesaid 16 units was done and registered at the Sub-Registrar's office. On 08.04.2011 the petitioners, by way of advertisement in the newspapers invited objections to the sale of the said property and the petitioners also got a title search of the aforesaid property from Solicitors who gave a Title Clearance Certificate. On 24.10.2011 the petitioners proceeded to make payment and entered into an agreement to sale which was registered by the Sub-Registrar. The petitioners were given possession note pertaining to the entire property and possession was also given. On 10.12.2011 sale deed pertaining to the sai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....late Tribunal, the concerned authorities have issued a notice dated 09.10.2012 which has been received by the petitioner on 11.10.2012 for taking over possession of the aforesaid property." 6. In the aforesaid factual background, the learned Sr. Counsels for the appellants-original petitioners reiterated all the contentions raised by them before the learned Single Judge, however, their main contention was that the Adjudicating Authority, which has subordinate jurisdiction to that of a High Court, could not have passed the order dated 10.07.2012, confirming the order of provisional attachment, especially, when the petitions filed by the appellants-original petitioners were pending before this Court. They, further, submitted that while passing the order dated 10.07.2012, the Adjudicating Authority placed reliance on a decision of the High Court, Andhra Pradesh, in the case of ""B. RAMA RAJU, S/O. B RAMALINGA RAJU VS. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE) AND ORS.", [2011]164 CompCas 149(AP), and therefore, no purpose would be served by relegating the petitioners to the Adjudicating Authority, since, same is binding to it. ....