Bombay High Court
State Bank Of India Thr. Asst. ... vs Government Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 20 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.4356.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 4356/2016
State Bank of India
A Corporation constituted under the
State Bank of India Act
1955 and having one of its branch office
amongst others known as
Hingna Industrial Estate Branch,
Phone No. 007104 236700
237034, 237525, 232071
Email:[email protected] sbi.co.in
acting through one of its
Assistant General Manager having
authority to file the application which
includes the authority to verify
and sign the application. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) Government of Maharashtra
Through its Sales tax Department
VAT -C-022 , Recovery branch
1st floor, Vikrikar Bhavan
Civil Lines, Nagpur
acting through its Sales-tax officer.
2) The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Finance, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
3) The District magistrate
Nagpur.
4) The Tahsildar
Nagpur.
wp.4356.16
5) M/s Tristar Tradelinks Ltd.
Plot No.2, Museum Road,
Near Gupta House, Civil Lines
Nagpur - 440 001.
6) Shri Kamal Shantilal Kothari
Aged about major, occu: Business
7) Smt. Preeti Kamal Kothari
Aged about major, occu: Business
5 and 6 resident of Flat No.203,
Mangalam Apartment, Khare Town
Nagpur 440 010. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Shri M.Anilkumar, Advocate for petitioner
Smt. H.N.Prabhu, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 4
............................................................................................................................
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 20 December, 2016
th
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for
the parties.
By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the
District Magistrate, dated 14.3.2016, rejecting the application filed by the
petitioner, under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, on the ground
that the sales tax authorities had attached the property towards the payment
wp.4356.16
of sales tax dues.
It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that it is well-settled that
the District Magistrate deciding an application under Section 14 of the Act
would only be required to consider whether the details as are required to be
supplied by the secured creditor in the affidavit under section 14(1) (a) of the
Act, have been supplied or not. It is stated that the District Magistrate would
not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the status of the property or the title
of the parties to the same. It is submitted that, in any case, it is held by this
Court in the judgment dated 26th September 2016 in Writ petition No.
6844/2015 that the sales tax authorities were not justified in attaching the
property with which we are concerned in this case and the order of the
Sales Tax officer of attaching the said property, is set aside.
Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 4 does not dispute that the order of
the Sales Tax officer of attaching the property is quashed and set aside in Writ
Petition No.6844/2015 decided on 26th September, 2016. As an Officer of the
Court, the learned Assistant Government Pleader also does not dispute that
the powers of the District Magistrate, while deciding an application under
Section 14 of the Act are limited.
In the circumstances of the case, the order of the District
Magistrate is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is well settled that the
wp.4356.16
District Magistrate would not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the status
of the property or the title of the parties to the same. The District Magistrate
would be required only to consider whether the secured creditor has furnished
proper particulars in the affidavit, as required by the provisions of Section 14
(1) (a) of the Act. In any case, since the order of the Sales Tax Officer
attaching the property is quashed and set aside, the reason for rejecting the
application of the petitioner under section 14 of the Act of 2003 would not
survive.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed.
The impugned order of the District Magistrate is quashed and set aside. The
District Magistrate is directed to pass an appropriate order on the application
of the petitioner within one month. The petitioner undertakes to appear before
the District Magistrate on 4.1.2017.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
