TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 557
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Bank of India regarding immovable property i.e single storey commercial land & building at VPO Kangar Tehsil Phul District Bathinda which had been purchased by him in an e-auction held on 04.10.2016 from the respondent-bank under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcment of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity 'the Act'). It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that at the time of the e-auction the property was stated to be free from all encumbrances as per the information provided by the respondent-bank. 2. Brief facts, which would be relevant for the decision of the present controversy as noticed in the petition are that a public notice for auction of various properties including the present ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hed the bank and duly informed them regarding the refusal of the registeration by respondent No.2 - Tehsildar on the ground that the said property stood attached. The petitioner further pleaded that the dispute regarding apportionment of the sale amount, if any, was between respondent No.1 on the one side and respondent No.4 on the other. Hence, respondent No.2 could not have refused the registration of the sale certificate simply on the ground of attachment of the said property. 3. In the reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2, it has been inter alia stated that the answering respondents were duty bound to comply with the orders of the Civil Courts as well as of the Government, as reflected in the revenue record. 4. Respondents No.4 to 6 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment) Rules, 2002 only after receiving the entire sale consideration wherein it was clearly mentioned that the sale of the scheduled property was made free from all encumbrances. There was no mention at all in the public sale notice regarding any dues, which may have been pending or any encumbrances which may have existed. 7. Section 31B of the Act as amended w.e.f. 16.08.2016 reads as under: "31B. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the rights of secured creditors to realize secured debts due and payable to them by sale of assets over which security interest is created, shall have priority and shall be paid in priority over all other debts and Government dues including revenues, taxes, cesses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ws of England, 4th Edn. Vol.8, para 1076, at p.666). Herbert Broom states: "Quando jus domini regis et subditi concurrunt jus regis praegerri debat- where the title of the kind and the title of a subject concur, the king's title must be preferred. In this case detur digniori is the rule..... where the titles of the kind and of a subject concur, the king takes the whole.....where the king's title and that of a subject concur, or are in conflict, the king's title is to be preferred/ "(Legal maxims; 10th Edn., pp.35-36). This common law doctrine of priority of State's debts has been recognized by the High Courts of India as applicable in British India before 1950 and hence the doctrine has been treated as "law in force" with....