9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Extraordinary Gaxette No.42 dated 13.05.2012 subjective confirmation order dated 14.09.2012 Form C.0-1. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that she had money transactions with the 3rd respondent and had borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and in this connection had offered her property as a security for repayment of the aforesaid loan. 3.It is the contention of the petitioner that even though the petitioner had re-paid the aforesaid amount to be 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent refused to return the title deed of the subject property which is sought to be auctioned to recover the amounts due from the 3rd respondent. 4.According to the petitioner when she demanded the title deeds from the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent informed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s further submitted that as per the information obtained from the respondents, the 3rd respondent was required to not only mortgage property of a value not less than the annual kist paid by him but was also required to register a mortgage within 15 days from the receipt of the confirmation order for the rental amount due to the Government at the time of execution of the mortgage deed. 9.In this case the petitioner, has not registered any mortgage and therefore the so-called deposit of title deed would not be binding on the petitioner. It is further contended that as per the confirmation order if there is a failure to register the mortgage deed as per sub-rule 1 C of rule 156 of the Pondicherry Excise Rules, 1970 the confirmation order shal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ense to run a arrack shop. The 3rd respondent was not only required to offer property by way of mortgage but was also required to register the same in favour of the respondents. However, same was not registered. 14.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. 15.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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
