Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)Ai Champday Industries Ltd vs Official Liquidator & Anr on 19 February, 2009
19. We find that the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Ai Champday Industries Ltd. (supra) relied upon by
the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has gone into the
meaning of the words "encumbrances" and has held that the
encumbrances must be capable of being found out either on
inspection of the land or the office of Registrar or a statutory
authority. We find in the present case a proper inspection of the
said property which had been offered to the Petitioner would
have revealed that there was encumbrances in the form of
tenancies created on the said property and that tenants were in
fact occupying the said property. Further, as observed in the
23/28
July 4, 2019
::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2019 00:51:26 :::
WP-4139-08.doc
impugned order of the D.R.A.T. the intervention application
filed by the tenants were dismissed by the Recovery Officer and
that the rights of the tenants could not stand in the way of sale
of the said property. Further, in the public notice itself it was
stated that the sale would be on "as is where is basis" and "as is
what is basis" and that the Petitioner had bid for the said
property on that basis and even after coming to know about the
encumbrances, which according to the Petitioner, was after sale
of the said property, the Petitioner offered to pay 25% of the bid
amount and tendered such payment.
Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr vs Rajesh Gupta on 15 December, 2009
20. The judgment of the Supreme Court in
Haryana financial Corporation (supra) relied upon by the
learned Counsel for the Petitioner can be distinguished as in
that case, it was incumbent upon the Appellants/Corporation to
disclose to the Respondent about the non-existence of the
independent passage to the Unit which would affect the price at
which the unit would be sold. In fact in that case, the
Appellant/Corporation had failed to produce to the buyers the
24/28
July 4, 2019
::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2019 00:51:26 :::
WP-4139-08.doc
entire documentation and accordingly, the Supreme Court has
held that the Appellant/Corporation had acted unfairly and was
trying to take advantage of its own wrong. In the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the Respondent No. 1-Bank
had offered inspection of the said property to the bidders
including the Petitioner prior to auction of the subject property.
In fact, the Petitioner had been given every opportunity to
inspect the subject property and that there had been no act on
the part of the Respondent No. 1-Bank which could be stated to
be unfair and / or by which it could be held that the Respondent
No. 1-Bank was taking advantage of its own wrong. In fact, the
applications by the tenants against auction of the property had
been rejected by the Recovery Officer on 24, 25 and 28th May
2007 and after such rejection on 31st May 2007, the Petitioner
had made application for two weeks time to pay the 25% of the
bid amount knowing fully well that the said property was free
for possession.
Asha Mehta And Another vs Allahabad Bank And Ors on 24 November, 2010
The other judgment of this Court in Asha Mehta
(supra) and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Smt.
Rekha Sahu (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the
25/28
July 4, 2019
::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2019 00:51:26 :::
WP-4139-08.doc
Petitioner are inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
Section 29 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993
Smt.Rekha Sahu vs The Uco Bank [Acquisition And Transfer ... on 20 August, 2013
The other judgment of this Court in Asha Mehta
(supra) and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Smt.
Rekha Sahu (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the
25/28
July 4, 2019
::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2019 00:51:26 :::
WP-4139-08.doc
Petitioner are inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
1