9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 1370 - SC - Central ExciseValidity of action of the Appellants in not releasing the Low Tension (domestic) Power Supply - HELD THAT - The facts of this case are similar to that of NESCO v. Raghunath Paper Mills (P) Ltd. 2012 (11) TMI 406 - SUPREME COURT . The tender/sale notice mentioned that the property was being auctioned on as is where is basis. The First Respondent applied for a fresh connection and he is in no way connected to the past owner. He has also not undertaken to pay the past arrears of the previous owner. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Challenge to the action of not releasing Low Tension Power Supply. 2. Validity of the auction sale under SARFAESI Act, 2002. 3. Transfer of sale proceeds for adjustment of arrears. 4. Denial of power supply connection due to arrears of previous owner. 5. Legal implications of auction purchaser's liability for past arrears. 6. Applicability of judgments in similar cases to the present situation. Issue 1: Challenge to the action of not releasing Low Tension Power Supply: The Writ Petition challenged the Appellants' decision not to release Low Tension Power Supply, which was allowed by a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellants, leading them to approach the Supreme Court. The High Court's judgment was based on the grounds that the power supply connection cannot be denied to the Petitioner due to the arrears of the previous owner, citing relevant legal precedents. Issue 2: Validity of the auction sale under SARFAESI Act, 2002: The auction sale conducted by the Second Respondent-Bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for land, plant, and machinery of M/s. J.T. Alloys Private Limited was challenged. The First Respondent participated in the auction and became the highest bidder for a portion of the property. The sale proceeds were utilized to clear the dues of the Bank, leaving no residual amount for adjustment towards arrears payable by the previous owner. Issue 3: Transfer of sale proceeds for adjustment of arrears: The Superintending Engineer requested the Bank to transfer the residual amount from the auction sale towards the arrears owed by M/s. J.T. Alloys Private Limited. However, the Bank informed that no amount was left after settling its dues. This raised the question of whether the remaining proceeds could be used to clear the arrears. Issue 4: Denial of power supply connection due to arrears of previous owner: The First Respondent, an auction purchaser, applied for a Low Tension electricity connection to the property bought at the auction. The Appellants did not respond, leading to the Writ Petition. The High Court's judgment emphasized that the power supply connection could not be denied to the Petitioner based on the arrears of the previous owner, as the Petitioner had not undertaken to clear those dues. Issue 5: Legal implications of auction purchaser's liability for past arrears: The Division Bench upheld the High Court's decision, stating that there was no evidence to show that the auction purchaser had agreed to settle the previous owner's liabilities. The Appellants were not justified in withholding power supply based on the non-payment of arrears by the previous consumer. The Supreme Court concurred with the lower courts' findings, citing relevant legal precedents regarding auction purchasers' obligations. Issue 6: Applicability of judgments in similar cases to the present situation: The Supreme Court, after considering various legal precedents, including cases like Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. Gujarat Inns and NESCO v. Raghunath Paper Mills, concluded that the auction purchaser in the present case should not be held liable for the past arrears of the property. The Court emphasized that the auction purchaser, who applied for a fresh electricity connection, was not responsible for the debts of the previous owner, especially when the sale was conducted on an "as is where is" basis. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the auction purchaser was not obligated to clear the arrears of the previous owner and that the power supply connection could not be denied based on such grounds. The judgment highlighted the legal principles governing auction sales and the rights of auction purchasers in similar situations.
|
