TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same was not registered - Similarly the information furnished by the Public Information Officer of the office of the Deputy Collector (Excise) vide communication dated 24.04.2015 in response to an application filed by the petitioner on 26.03.2015 has confirmed that the petitioner has not produced Annexure I and II. There is no clarity in the role of the petitioner i.e, whether her property was offered by her in her capacity as a surety for the arrack license issued to the 3rd respondent or as mortgage or as a bidder herself. Either way in absence of valid registration of the mortgage as is contemplated in the confirmation order dated 14.09.2012, the respondent cannot proceed against the petitioner or her property - there appears to be ir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een misplaced and the 3rd respondent would return the same to the petitioner as and when he locates the same. 5.The 3rd respondent had applied for a license to run an arrack shop and had furnished the title deed of the petitioner as a security for getting the aforesaid arrack license. According, to the official respondents, the 3rd respondent had also filed a solvency certitifcate for the aforesaid purpose and therefore they were constrained to 1st issue an order of attachment on 05.01.2015. Since the 3rd respondent was in arrears and thereafter the impugned order dated 08.09.2016. 6.Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also instituted a private complaint before the Chief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the deposit made by such person shall be forfeited and the right of retail vend of liquor shall be given to the next higher bidder. It is stated that though there was no valid registration, yet the 3rd respondent was allowed to carry on the arrack shop contrary to the confirmation order dated 14.09.2012. 10.On the other hand, the respondent would submit that the petitioner had furnished a solvency certificate for a sum of ₹ 65 lakhs which was obtained from the Taluk Office, Puducherry on 11.06.2012 to specifically participate in the arrack/toddy shop auction. 11.It is submitted that the 3rd respondent who was the ex-license had defaulted in payment of monthly kist amount as per the conditions of the Confirmation order and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistration of the mortgage as is contemplated in the confirmation order dated 14.09.2012, the respondent cannot proceed against the petitioner or her property. 16.Further, in the counter it is stated that the petitioner had participated in the auction and produced solvency certificate. If that be so, it remains inexplicable as to how the petitioner's can be used as a security for the license issue to the 3rd respondent. 17.There appears to be irregularity in permitting the 3rd respondent to run arrack shop contrary to the confirmation dated 14.09.2012. Therefore, while allowing the writ petition, liberty is given to the official respondents to proceed against the 3rd respondent to recover amount due from the 3rd respondent in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
