IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 16045 of 2007(I)
1. M/S. S.R. CASHEWS (P) LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT.),
... Respondent
2. TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY),
3. VILLAGE OFFICER,
4. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, KOLLAM.
5. CHANDRAMONY,
6. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.
7. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON
For Respondent :SRI.V.G.ARUN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :22/08/2007
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
-----------------------------------
WP(C) No. 16045 of 2007
-------------------------
Dated, this the 21st day of August, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner firm, a defaulter to sales tax arrears and arrears of
loan due to the 4th respondent Bank, is challenging sale of property
by the 2nd respondent to the 5th respondent for Rs. 19.90 lakhs.
The sale was made on 25/04/2007 and the purchaser remitted 15%
on the date of sale and balance on 22/05/2007. Petitioner’s case is
that the additional respondent impleaded herein has agreed to
purchase the property for nearly Rs. 10 lakhs above the price on
which it was sold to 5th respondent. The confirmation of sale was
stayed by this Court. I feel, sale calls for interference because of
the simple reason that the sale price offered by the proposed
purchaser, i.e. Addl. Respondent herein, is 50% above the price
offered by the purchaser. Moreover, even though defaulter is the
applicant, this Court has to take into account the interest of the
State, to which around Rs. 15 lakhs sales tax arrears is due, and
also of the Nationalised Bank, to which also a substantial amount is
due. Even though Bank was already given an opportunity to find
out a purchaser to purchase the property for an amount above the
proposed purchase price, Bank failed to comply with the same. In
WP(C) No. 16045/2007
-2-
the circumstances and also taking into account the interest of the
purchaser, I allow the writ petition quashing the sale made in favour
of the 5th respondent, on the additional respondent paying to 5th
respondent the entire amount deposited by him, along with it 5% in
terms of Section 52 of the RR Act, within a period of three weeks
from now. Besides this, the additional respondent impleaded herein
should deposit the balance amount of the sale price of Rs. 29 lakhs
before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent will adjust from the
amounts collected from the 5th respondent and from the additional
respondent, towards arrears of tax dues to the State first and pay
the balance to the 4th respondent Bank. The adjustment by the
Tahsildar towards arrears due to the State will be subject to the
result of appeal filed before the Supreme Court against the decision
of this Court in some other cases. It will be open to the Bank to
proceed with recovery against he petitioner for the balance liability.
If payment is not made within three weeks from now as stated
above, sale in favour of the 5th respondent will be confirmed and it
will be open to the petitioner to challenge it, if there is any
irregularity in sale.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.)
jg