TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dhiana (for short The Company ). The Company availed credit facilities from the petitioner and mortgaged land measuring 10 kanals situated at Village Khwajeke Tehsil and District Ludhiana to secure the loan advanced to it. Since the Company defaulted in making payments amounting to Rs.8,95,80,690.51 ps. as on 30.6.2006, the petitioner initiated the proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short `the Act'). The petitioner also served possession notice dated 9.2.2007 to the borrowers and to the general public before taking the possession of the properties. The petitioner took possession in terms of the said possession notice and pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . SICOM Ltd. and another, (2009)2 Supreme Court Cases 121. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon Rule 93 of Schedule II of Income Tax Act, 1961, which contemplates that nothing in the said Schedule shall affect any provisions of the Act, where under the said Act, the tax is a first charge upon any asset. However, learned counsel for the respondents could not refer to any provision in the Income Tax Act, 1961 whereby the income-tax dues can be treated as the first charge on the assets of the assessee. Learned counsel for the respondents has also referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and others, (2009)4 SCC 94, wherein the provision of the Act; Kerala General Sales Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne of priority of Crown debts or that any such priority has been so created under any of the provisions of the Excise Act or Rules or the Customs Act. As a result, the writ petitions filed by the Union of India are dismissed. As a necessary consequence, the writ petitions filed by the Financial Corporations, and other such writ petitions, seeking quashing of the order of attachment etc. are allowed. Later a Division Bench in Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation v. Union of India (C.W.P. No. 3875 of 2005 decided on 30.1.2007) followed the said judgment and concluded as under:- For the reasons aforementioned, this petition succeeds. We declare that the PSIDC have a preferential right to recover its dues as it is a secured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
