TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1946
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner which is a banking company within the meaning of Section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, registered and incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, had sanctioned credit facilities to the borrowers viz. (i) IPH Ispate LLP, (ii) Isha Girish Sangani, (iii) Ajay Ramanlal Mehta, (iv) Girish Chimanlal Sangani and (v) Hataishee Girish Sangani vide sanction letters dated 24th September, 2018, 15th September, 2020 and 25th June, 2020. (ii) The borrowers in order to secure the said credit facilities created a mortgage of the subject properties in favour of the Petitioner by depositing the original title deeds with the Petitioner. The mortgage has been recorded vide a letter of confirmation of Title deeds dated 12th October, 2018. (iii) The Petitioner had registered its charge over the secured assets under Central Registry of Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India ("CERSAI") i.e. over the subject properties - Shop No. L21 on 16th April, 2019, Shop No. L23 on 16th April, 2019 and Shop No. L26 on 9th November, 2018. (iv) The borrowers having availed of the said credit facilities, failed and neglected to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccordingly, the present Writ Petition has been filed on 21st October, 2024. 3. Mr. Motwani, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that its charge on the subject properties (in the form of a mortgage by deposit of title deeds) has been registered with CERSAI prior in point of time to the attachment of the subject properties by the Respondents viz. on 16th April, 2019 in the case of Shop Nos. L21 and L23 and on 9th November 2018 in the case of Shop No. L26. The Respondents in their Affidavit in Reply filed in the Petition on 6th September, 2024 has stated that the attachment of the entire mall including the subject properties was effected on 6th September, 2024. This, in view of outstanding property tax inter alias on the subject properties i.e. Shop No. L21 being Rs. 2.84 lakh, Shop L23 being Rs. 3.47 lakh and Shop L26 being Rs. 2.29 lakh as on 31st March, 2025 as per the statement annexed to the said Affidavit. This, against the dues of the Petitioner which stood at Rs.5.58 Crore as on 11th September, 2024. 4. Mr. Motwani has submitted that the Respondents have not even registered their attachment / charge with CERSAI. He has submitted that Section 26....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he prior registered claim will have priority. 8. Mr. Motwani has submitted that the sealing of the mortgaged properties of the Petitioner is contrary to the settled law and is preventing the Petitioner from executing the Order of the CJM, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. He has accordingly sought that the present Petition to be allowed. 9. Mr. Bhavik Manik, the learned Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that the attachment of the subject properties by the Respondents - Corporation is to be treated differently than Revenue's charge over the subject properties which fell for consideration in Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. (Supra). He has submitted that under Section 212 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (MMC Act), the Corporation with regard to property tax is held to have a first charge on the property, namely, land and building and that this provision is required to be given full effect to. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Rajesh Parekh and Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay and Ors. [MANU/MH/1342/2006 decided on 21st November, 2006] at paragraph 8 in this context. 10. Mr. Manek has also placed reliance upon the judgme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....025] In the said decision, this Court had considered Section 192 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and Rule 11(2) of the Maharashtra Realization of Land Revenue Rules, 1967 which provide that any attachment of the property must be followed by a proclamation in prescribed form. In that case, the Respondent No.1 had failed to produce any evidence of proclamation having been issued in the prescribed form in compliance with Section 192 of the Code and Rule 11(2) of the 1967 Rules. In view of which the priority of the Petitioner as secured creditor accorded by Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act gets attracted. Further, it was observed that in Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. (Supra), it has been held that the attachment is required to be followed by a proclamation according to law and it is only then that the 'priority' accorded by Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, and Section 318 of the RDDB Act, would not get attracted. 14. In the present case, the Petitioner - Secured Creditor having registered its charge over the subject properties with CERSAI i.e. Shop No. L21 on 16th April, 2019, Shop No. L23 on 16th April, 2019 and Shop No. L26 on 9th November, 2018 would, in light of the law l....