TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RS. [ 2022 (2) TMI 1171 - SUPREME COURT ], where it was held that the provisions contained in the SARFAESI Act, 2002, even after insertion of Section 11E in the Central Excise Act, 1944 w.e.f. 08.04.2011, will have an overriding effect on the provisions of the Act of 1944. In view of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, nothing remains to be decided by this Court and by following the principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court the letter/ communication dated 01.03.2013 (Ann.P.18) appears to be illegal and without jurisdiction and is hereby quashed holding thereby that the petitioner-Canara Bank is having first charge over the property belongs to the respondent No.3. It is further directed that respondent No.1 and 2 shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondent No.3, the respondent No.1 and 2 have no right to make any interruption by issuing letter/ communication dated 01.03.2013 (Ann.P.18) or otherwise and the petitioner-Bank is free to recover the money by auctioning and selling the said property. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the controversy involved in the present case has already been resolved/decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal No.2196/2012 vide its judgment dated 24.02.2022. (2022 SCC Online SC 227). 3. Perusal of said judgment shows that the following similar question was under consideration before Hon'ble Apex Court : Issue No.2: Whether in the absence of any provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding the matter in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank (Supra). 5. In view of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, nothing remains to be decided by this Court and by following the principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court the letter/ communication dated 01.03.2013 (Ann.P.18) appears to be illegal and without jurisdiction and is hereby quashed holding thereby that the petitioner-Canara Bank is having first charge over the property belongs to the respondent No.3. It is further directed that respondent No.1 and 2 shall not create any hurdle in auction and sale of the property in question. 6. With the aforesaid this petition is allowed , without any order as to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
