Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1931 (GUJ)

Axis Bank Limited v. State of Gujarat

2024-10-16

BHARGAV D.KARIA, D.N.RAY

body2024
JUDGMENT : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. Heard learned advocate Mr.P.M.Dave for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shrunjal Shah for the respondent No.1. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shrunjal Shah waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quashed and set aside the action of respondent no.2 in registering charge of attachment on the subject property being Block/Survey No. 182 paiki, N.H. No. 8, area admeasuring 0-30-16 i.e. 3016 sq. mtr at Kanjari, Tal. Nadiad, Dist. Kheda and Revenue Surey No. 39/A paiki, western area admeasuring 3120 sq.mtrs, Mouje: Poicha (Raina) as being illegal, unjust, arbitrary, and unreasonable and contrary to the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 as also violative of statutory rights of the petitioner bank and cancel the charge of the respondent no.2 authority, in the interest of justice and equity; (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent no.7 authority to record the name of the respondent no.6 - in the property card of the subject property forthwith, being an auction purchaser of the subject property, pending admission, hearing and final hearing of the present petition in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are as under : 3.1. In the year 2013, as the respondent nos.3 to 5 were in need of finance for their business, the petitioner advanced cash credit facility worth Rs.3.60 Crore by creating equitable mortgage with regards to the properties mentioned in the mortgage deed. As there was consistent default on the part of the respondent no.3 to 5 in making payment of the financial assistance, petitioner-Bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’). 3.2. Thereafter, the petitioner-Bank issued notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act on 18.07.2018 calling upon the respondent no.3 to 5 to make payment, failing which, proceedings under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act shall be initiated. 3.2. Thereafter, the petitioner-Bank issued notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act on 18.07.2018 calling upon the respondent no.3 to 5 to make payment, failing which, proceedings under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act shall be initiated. It is the case of the petitioner that since the borrower did not repay the dues to the petitioner, the petitioner issued a possession notice dated 05.11.2018 under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. 3.3. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Collector & District Magistrate, Anand (Rural). The District Magistrate passed an order dated 13.05.2019 for taking physical possession of the secured assets and the Mamlatdar issued notice on 15.06.2019 intimating the respondent No.3 to 5 for taking over the possession of the properties (in question). 3.4. On 03.09.2021, a notice was issued to the respondent Nos.3 to 5 intimating them for sale of secured assets and on 04.09.2021 as per Rule 8(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the auction notice was published in newspaper, wherein, the auction was scheduled on 28.09.2021. After successful auction process, when the Bank Official initiated process for mutation of name of the respondent No.6 pursuant to the auction sale, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that vide order dated 18.02.2021, properties (in question) were attached and charge was created by Revenue Entry No. 19356 dated 06.04.2021. Therefore, the petitioner issued a notice dated 11.10.2022 through the Advocate for removal of attachment order dated 18.02.2021 by citing the judgment of this Court in which it was held that such charge cannot be created as against the secured creditor in view of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, however, the same was replied vide letter dated 03.11.2022 and informed that the charge cannot be lifted as the tax dues by the respondent No.3 to 5 are outstanding. Hence, being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the action of passing the order of attachment and creating charge over the subject property which is already mortgaged with the petitioner-Bank for which the demand was raised by the respondent No.2, the petitioner-Bank has preferred this petition. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr.P.M.Dave for the petitioner-Bank submitted that so far as prayer (B) is concerned, it is for the respondent No.6 to take actions and therefore he is not pressing prayer (B). 4.2. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr.P.M.Dave for the petitioner-Bank submitted that so far as prayer (B) is concerned, it is for the respondent No.6 to take actions and therefore he is not pressing prayer (B). 4.2. With regard to prayer (A), it was submitted that the action of the respondent- State to pass an order of attachment and creating charge over the property in question which is already mortgaged with the petitioner-Bank is contrary to the settled legal position. 4.3. It was further submitted that the petitioner-Bank has created the charge in the year 2014 whereas, the respondent-State has registered the charge subsequently in the year 2021 and as per the provisions of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner-Bank shall have the priority over the charge over the attachment made by the respondent-State for recovery of its outstanding dues under the Value Added Tax Act. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shrunjal Shah for the respondent No.1 could not controvert the facts narrated by the petitioner-Bank. 6. Hence, in view of the above facts and submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, the action of respondent no.2 in registering charge of attachment on the subject property being arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable is hereby quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No orders as to cost.