9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (7) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Deputy Collector (Collection), Sales Tax, Haldwani, District Nainital. 2.. The respondent No. 4, Messrs L.H. Sugar Factory Ltd., Tahsil Kashipur, District Nainital, is in effect a pro forma respondent. 3.. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel at length. 4.. The short facts are that the Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation, U.P. Ltd., Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") had granted a loan to one Messrs. Fine Straw & Card Board Factory Pvt., Limited under an arrangement of joint equitable mortgage along with the U.P. State Financial Corporation Limited. The loans, the petitioner submits amounted to Rs. 17 lacs, Rs. 18.30 lacs and Rs. 30 lacs. 5.. The loans were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or guarantee clauses as the case may be. This is the other aspect of the matter. 8.. It is contended by the corporation that after it sold the property to L.H. Sugar Factories Pvt. Limited, the assets are subject to a separate mortgage in favour of the corporation. The corporation has reservations whether the Sales Tax Department can subject this mortgaged property to an attachment for alienation to a third party for recovery of sales tax dues. It is emphasised on behalf of the corporation that any arrangement which it has made by transferring the assets, in context, to L.H. Sugar Factories Pvt. Limited, it has done so in accordance with the rights available to it by law under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. It is submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esentation of the corporation was summarily rejected by the Deputy Collector (Collection), Sales Tax, Haldwani on May 24, 1993. 9.. Finding that the assets sold by the corporation, which it could do under section 29, has been subjected to an attachment for auction with only the confirmation of sale remaining, it was left with no other alternative but to file the present petition with no other status except that it was a company, though a Government company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 as this alone gave it the status of a person to move the High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10.. At the very outset, without going any further into the nature of the controversy between a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtakings of the Central Government to the effect that all disputes, regardless of the type, should be resolved amicably by mutual consultation or through the good offices of empowered agencies of the Government or through arbitration and recourse to litigation should be eliminated.' 3.. We direct that the Government of India shall set up a committee consisting representatives from the Ministry of Industry, the Bureau of Public Enterprises and the Ministry of Law, to monitor disputes between Ministry and Ministry of Government of India, Ministry and public sector undertaking of the Government of India and public sector undertakings in between themselves, to ensure that no litigation comes to court or to a Tribunal without the matter having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also an obligation on the High Court to first demand from the State Government an answer, to the effect, that no litigations are to come to court without first having been examined by a committee clearing it for a litigation whether before the Collector, the Sales Tax Department or before the High Court. 13.. There is also a Government Order of the State Government, No. 160/ Sat Nyaya-4-9/91 dated January 16, 1991 which obliges the departments of the State Government to first sort out issues between them before entering the arena of courts. 14.. This Court cannot permit issues between departments of the Government, Government companies or for that matter public sector undertakings to enter into litigation amongst them, without first havi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Corporation, U.P. Limited, dated May 22, 1993 rejected by the Deputy Collector (Collection), Sales Tax, Haldwani alone should become the basis of the meeting of the secretaries for finding out a solution, which under the decision of the Supreme Court is their obligation. 18.. Until a decision is taken by the State of Uttar Pradesh without permitting litigation between the corporation and the Sales Tax Department, the confirmation of the auction, dated July 5, 1993 in pursuance of the recovery proceedings in the matter of sales tax dues against Fine Straw & Card Board Factory Pvt. Limited and in the matter of an attachment relating to Khata Khatauni No. 166, Khet No. 1392/Ka-Se/87/2, Rakba 4.00 Ka 1/2 bhag (wali bhumi), Lagan 40.00 shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
