TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the first respondent do not belong to the third respondent and on the other hand, they belong to the fourth respondent. Admittedly, the fourth respondent is not the defaulter before the first respondent. Therefore, the very attachment made by the first respondent of the properties belonging to the fourth respondent for realizing the tax dues from the third respondent, cannot be justified. In any event, in view of the fact that the petitioner being the secured creditor and their claim prevails over the other claims including Crown debts, this Court is of the view that the first respondent is not entitled to continue the attachment over the subject matter properties any further. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 292/1 and 2, 1293/1, New T.S.No.4, 5 and 7, Ward J, an extent of 3.27 acres together with right of way covered under MOD registered as Doc.No.5805/2010, SRO. Tiruppur. Since the third respondent had committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the loan accounts were classified as NPA on 30.06.2014. The petitioner-Bank had initiated SARFAESI action to recover the outstanding loan amount of ₹ 91,14,17,029 as on 31.10.2014 from the third respondent and its guarantors. Consequently, the petitioner-Bank had taken possession of the secured property on 10.02.2015 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Even after issuance of demand and possession notices, the third respondent and its guarantors have not acted upon. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e attached property on 08.07.2016, which is known to the auction purchaser as well. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-Bank, being the secured creditor, is having priority over the other dues, as contemplated under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and therefore, the first respondent is not justified in not raising the attachment. He further contended that in any event, the properties attached by the first respondent are the properties of the fourth respondent, who is not the defaulter at the hands of the first respondent and on the other hand, only the third respondent/assessee, is the defaulter. Therefore, he contended that for realizing the tax dues from the third respondent, the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... become the properties covered under the secured credit. 8. It is well settled that the claim of the secured creditor over the property will prevail over all other dues/debts including the crown debts. The following decisions were already made by this Court and the Apex Court to that effect. (i) In the case of ICICI Bank Ltd., .Vs. The Official Liquidator, reported in 2005 (1) CTC 758, the Division Bench of this Court has held at Paragraph No.3 as follows: This issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dena Bank V. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh Co., MANU/SC/0317/2000 where it has been held that the claim of a secured credit will prevail over cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and was continued by Article 372 of the Constitution (AIR pp. 1835-36, para 7 : SCR at pp. 861-62). (iii) An unreported decision made in Special Leave to Appeal No.6483 of 2018 dated 10.08.2018, the Apex Court has observed as follows: We may also refer in this connection to Dena Bank Vs. Bhikhabahai Prabhudas Parekh and Co. Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 694 and its progeny, making it clear that Income-tax dues, being in the nature of Crown debts, do not take precedence even over secured creditors, who are private persons. (iv) A learned Single Judge of this Court has also taken similar view in WP.Nos.40656 of 2015 etc., dated 18.07.2017, at Paragraph Nos.9 10, it has been observed as foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt do not belong to the third respondent and on the other hand, they belong to the fourth respondent. Admittedly, the fourth respondent is not the defaulter before the first respondent. Therefore, the very attachment made by the first respondent of the properties belonging to the fourth respondent for realizing the tax dues from the third respondent, cannot be justified. In any event, in view of the fact that the petitioner being the secured creditor and their claim prevails over the other claims including Crown debts, this Court is of the view that the first respondent is not entitled to continue the attachment over the subject matter properties any further. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
