TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for Income Tax Department (In RVWPET Nos.173 & 174) For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.P. Misra, Senior Advocate with Mz. Ekta Agarwal, Advocate (In RVWPET Nos.173 & 174) ORDER 1. This common order shall dispose of all the aforementioned Review Petitions. 2. The aforementioned Review Petitions are clubbed together as they are directed against the common judgment dated 29.06.2022 in W.P.(C) No.26500 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.27775 of 2021. It is pertinent to note that W.P.(C) No.26500 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.27775 of 2021 were clubbed together as they involved a common question of law and hence decided together. I. Brief facts in RVWPET Nos.156 & 173 of 2022 The applicant-petitioner in RVWPET No.156 of 2022 i.e. M/s. Maa Kalika Bhandar (partnership....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtgaged by M/s. Maa Kalika Bhandar was made by one Sidhant Narayan Singh Deo before DRT by filing S.A. No.41/2019. It is pertinent to mention that originally the disputed/mortgaged property stood in the name of Hitendra Pratap Singh Deo and upon his death, part of the property devolved to his wife R.R. Laxmi and one of his son Sourendra Narayan Singh Deo and both of them subsequently sold the property to Mr. Jay Kumar Jajodia Review Petitioner No.3 (partner in the petitioner firm i.e. M/s. Maa Kalika Bhandar) vide RSD No.1916 dated 19.12.2008. Mr. Sidhant Narayan Singh Deo who is the son of Sourendra Narayan Singh Deo (vendor of the partner of the petitioner) filed a case before the learned DRT, Cuttack vide S.A. No.41/2019 to quash the ent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is thus submitted that observations in Para 24 of the common judgment dated 29.06.2022 which is reproduced below, requires to be relooked:- "24. As regards the contentions of the petitioner that property was already attached by the Income Tax Department, before the same was mortgaged we find that the said issue cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings for the reason that firstly, it is a disputed question of fact as regard the date of mortgage and the date when the property was attached; as also whether such attachment actually lead to creation of a charge in terms of the section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or not as has been extensively dealt with by a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kamla Eng....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he property mortgaged as a Collateral Security in the case of M/s. Dwarikamayee Bhandar having not been auctioned, but still it does not persuade us to review our order on these ground. Even if M/s. Maa Kalika Bhandar had not approached the DRT to challenge the action of the Secured Creditor/Bank, it would still have the liberty to do so regarding the validity of the order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kaniyalal Lalchand Sachdev V/s State of Maharashtra 2011 (2) SCC 782, wherein the order passed under Section 14 has been held to be an action under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 and thereby entitling the person aggrieved to approach the DRT by filin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iding effect. It may be correct that applications for impleadment of Department of Income Tax stood filed, but since this Court had formed an opinion that inter se dispute regarding priority of charge based on various factors including the respective dates of creation of enforceable charge of the two separate entities, it would require a fact finding inquiry, which is better to be conducted before the DRT, therefore, even if the I.T. Department would have been impleaded, it would have no impact over the eventual findings rendered by us in Para 24 of the final order in question. Therefore, such a contention not being a sufficient ground for review, is thus rejected. The next and the main argument stressed is that the properties in both the ....