9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent claims that there are arrears of property taxes which ought to have been paid in respect of the property that is the subject-matter of the present petition, viz., 4th Floor of B Wing and C Wing of a building named Paragon Condominium . 3. For the purpose of this order, I shall proceed on the basis that the property tax is due in respect of the said premises from the petitioner. 4. On 28th February, 2001, the petitioner made a reference under section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter the S.I.C. Act ). By a letter dated 28th February, 2001, the Registrar confirmed that the reference made by the petitioner and received on 14th February, 2001 was registered as Case No. 97 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of any guarantee in respect of any loans or advance, granted to the industrial company shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the Appellant Authority." [Emphasis supplied] 7. The respondent issued a warrant of attachment dated 5th August, 2002 in respect of the said premises for non-payment of property taxes in the sum of Rs. 42,00,000. The petitioner once again by its letter dated 16th August, 2002 contended that in view of pendency of the registration of the said reference, the Respondent was not entitled to execute the warrant of attachment. 8. The Respondent, however, issued the impugned notice dated 16th October, 2002, stating that in view of the petitioner s failu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2003, viz., warrant of attachment and auction notice were also issued during the pendency of the appeal before the AAIFR. 14. That the proceeding by the respondent for recovery of its dues is prohibited by section 22 of the S.I.C. Act is clear from the plain language of the section itself. Moreover, a Division Bench of this Court in Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1990 Bom. 27, considered similar proceedings for attachment by the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat sought to recover its dues which, it was contended, was not permissible in view of section 22 of the S.I.C. Act. It was contended that the same amounted to a coercive procedure for recovering the amounts due. It was contended that it would amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt in exercise of its legislative power contained in List I of the Seventh Schedule. If this is so, naturally the provisions in the Act cannot be controlled by any other Act that might have been passed by the State Legislature in exercise of its legislative power under List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. We have already held that the Act does not touch upon the powers of the Gram Panchayat to levy property tax. It only puts a restriction on the recovery proceedings that may be adopted for recovering the taxes which the Gram Panchayat may legally levy. Such a provision must be regarded as incidental to the main provision contained in the Act namely the provision to nurse and bring back to health the sick industrial units. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
