Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs District Industries Centre (D.I.C.) on 18 November, 2021
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, C.T. Ravikumar
1
ITEM NO.27 Court 3 (Video Conferencing) SECTION III
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 6350/2021
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED Appellant(s)
VERSUS
DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE (D.I.C.) & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 10919/2021 (IX)
(FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 82899/2021 and FOR EXEMPTION
FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 82900/2021 )
Date : 18-11-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR
For Appellant(s) Mr. Himanshu Bhushan, AOR
Mr. Gaurav Khanna, AOR
Mr. Amar Dave, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG
Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR
Ms. Saumya Kapoor, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
SLP(C) No. 10919/2021
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
Much ado was made by the learned counsel for Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by the petitioner on the basis of observations made by the NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2021.11.22 18:55:05 IST Reason: High Court in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the impugned judgment. Those observations, in our opinion, are not a 2 positive finding of fact in favour of the petitioner that the petitioner had no constructive notice as such.
It is not necessary for us to examine the other aspects dealt with by the High Court in the impugned judgment. For, the agreement executed by the petitioner pursuant to which the auction was concluded in favour of the petitioner reads thus:-
“16. All statutory dues/attendant charges/other dues, including registration charges, stamp duty, taxes, any other known, Unknown liability, expenses, property tax, any other dues of the Govt. or anybody in respect of properties/assets sold, shall have to be borne by the purchaser.
17. The sale certificate shall be issued in the same name in which the Bid is submitted.
18. Any other encumbrances known to the Bank is not known. The Authorized office or the Bank shall not be responsible for any charge, lien, encumbrances, or any other dues to the Government or anyone else in respect of properties E-auction. The intending bidders should make discreet enquiries as regards to the property from any authorities besides the bank’s charges and satisfy themselves about the title extent of the property, any of the bank’s charges and satisfy themselves about the title extent of the property, any statutory liabilities, arrear of property tax before submitting the bid. No claim of whatsoever nature regarding the property put for sale, encumbrance over the property on any other matter will be entertained after submission of the online bid.” Having agreed to these stipulations, it is too late in the day for the petitioner to contend that the petitioner would not be liable to pay the statutory dues so as to remove the charge on the property in question in that regard.3
The argument of the petitioner is that the charge is not in respect of the property as such, but is the consequence of the statutory dues. That makes no difference. The fact remains that there is first charge of the State on the property in respect of the statutory dues.
Having agreed to the terms referred to above, it is not open for the petitioner to resile from the liability to discharge the same in connection with the first charge of the State on the property in question.
Hence, this special leave petition is dismissed for the reasons mentioned above. Thus, we uphold the decision of High Court in rejecting writ petition and reliefs claimed by the petitioner.
We accede to the request of the counsel for the petitioner that after the petitioner pays the sales tax dues, a fresh sale certificate be issued by the Bank in favour of the petitioner. That request be considered by the Bank appropriately.
(NEETU KHAJURIA) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER