TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, with regard to the immovable property bearing Survey No. 18/1 at Goa, as a Fraudulent Transaction. The 'Adjudicating Authority' while dismissing the said Application has observed that the Applicant / Liquidator had failed in establishing that the sale Transaction, dated 11/08/2008, in favour of the Respondent, was fraudulent. 2. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant / Liquidator submitted that a Sale Deed was executed between the Corporate Debtor and the Respondent on 11/08/2008 for area admeasuring 123475 sq. m. at South Goa, the Recitals of which Sale Deed state that the Respondent had paid Consideration of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the Corporate Debtor in the year 1989 at the time of purchase of the subject property from Bank of Baroda. It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor and the Respondent fall within the realm of 'Related Party' as both the Companies are run by the same Promoter Group. As there is no look back period specified under Section 66 of the Code, the Appellant had challenged the subject Sale Deed for being fraudulent in nature. 3. It is the main case of the Appellant that the Sale Deed dated 11/08/2008 was executed without any valid party through Mr. R.N. Yad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 12. Hence, a sale of an immovable property has to be for a price. The price may be payable in future. It may7 be partly paid and the remaining part can be made payable in future. The payment of price is an essential part of a sale covered by section 54 of the TP Act. If a sale deed in respect of an immovable property is executed without payment of price and if it does not provide for the payment of price at a future date, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law. It is of no legal effect. Therefore, such a sale will be void. It will not effect the transfer of the immovable property. 5. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the Books of Accounts of the Respondent Company reflects the said Transaction; that the Appellant is submitting that they are placing reliance on a Forensic Audit Report, but again state that it is a Transaction Audit; even if the letter dated 18/05/1989 is a fabricated one, the proof of execution of Sale Deed is to be construed as the clinching evidence that indeed an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- was paid for the cheque and the Sale Deed is a registered one. As regarding the filing of the balance sheet, Learned Couns....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et this 'Tribunal' addresses to the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that there are no tangible reasons for the delay in the Registration of the Sale Deed when the Sale Agreement is dated 15/05/1989. It is seen from the record that there was an attachment by the Central Excise Department till June 2008 and also that the subject Property was occupied by a tenant till the year 2002 and the same is made part of the Recitals of the Sale Deed. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the Recitals in the Sale Deed dated 11/08/2008, this Tribunal is of the considered view that merely because the Sale Agreement is dated 15/05/1989 and the Sale Deed is executed on 11/08/2008, it cannot be a ground for establishing that the said transaction is a Fraudulent one. Now, we address to the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that there is no documentary proof to establish that Rs. 50,00,000/- was indeed transferred to the Corporate Debtor by the Respondent. Apart from the fact that the Financials of the Respondent Company record that the said Consideration was paid on its behalf by 'M/s Shivalika Leasing and Finance Limited', this 'Trib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... MPIDCCL and the ISAPL/Respondent No. 1 not being illegal nor suffering from any procedural or material irregularities, we are satisfied with the findings of the Adjudicating Authority that it is not open to the Appellant to unsettle or derail the transaction by raising the bogey of section of 43, 49 and 66 of the IBC or to disturb the possession or interfere with the leasehold right of ISAPL". 12. From the letter dated 06/09/1989, it is clear that the amount was paid by a cheque and received by the Bank. The Bank statements of the Corporate Debtor for the year 1989-90 during which time the Sale Agreement was entered into, the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- is reflected. The letter of the Senior Manager, Bank of Baroda dated 06/09/1989 addressed to the Corporate Debtor clearly states that the Bank had received an amount of Rs. 37,50,000/- vide the Banker's cheque No. 455053 issued by Bank of India towards balance due of the bid. To reiterate, the Auditor's Financial Statements in the Financial Year 2008-09 also disclose payment of the balance consideration of Rs. 37,50,000/- with specific reference to the Registered Sale Deed dated 11/08/2008. Additionally, the Recitals of the Sale D....