Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2006 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (4) TMI 258 - HC - Companies LawEnforcement of Security Interest - banking business - sale proceeds - conflict u/s 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and section 35 of the Securitisation Act - Securitisation Act being Central Act must prevail - HELD THAT:- There being no provision in the Securitisation Act providing for first charge in favour of the banks, section 35 of the Securitisation Act cannot be held to override section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 that specifically provides that the liability under the said Act shall be the first charge. The overriding provision contained in section 38C is only subject to the provision of the first charge in the Central Act holding the field. The case of the Bank is not covered by the expression, "subject to any provision regarding first charge in any Central Act for the time being in force" and that being the position, section 38C is not overridden by section 35 of the Securitisation Act. We hold that section 35 of the Securitisation Act has no effect whatsoever in the operation of section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. Section 35 of the Securitisation Act does not override section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act and, therefore, based on section 35 of the Securitisation Act, the Bank does not get precedence or for that matter priority over the statutory first charge under section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. Rather the statutory first charge under section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act has precedence over the Bank’s charge based on contract. It what we have discussed, we find no substance in any of the contentions raised by the counsel for the Bank. It is not in dispute that before the process was initiated by the Bank u/s 13 of the Act by issuance of notice dated 20-12-2004, the sales tax authorities had already attached the properties of the company for recovery of sales tax dues. Despite the recovery process for outstanding sales tax dues having been initiated by the sales tax authorities who had a first charge u/s 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, the Bank in grossly illegal manner proceeded u/s 13 of the Securitisation Act and sold the property of the company for recovery of its outstanding dues. The action of the Bank is wholly illegal and unauthorised. The result is that we find no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed with cost which we quantify at Rs. 10,000. We also direct the petitioner to deposit the sale proceeds amounting to Rs. 66,31,001 with the respondent No. 2 within four weeks from today.
|