9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued in his favour. Therefore, as long as the said certificate of sale has not been cancelled or modified, the Department cannot have any lien over the property – writ petition allowed – impugned order quashed – decided in favor of petitioner. - WP.No.12756 of 2012, M.P.No.2 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. D. Vijayakumar For the Respondents : Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai ORDER Heard Mr.D.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent and Mr.S.Diwakar, learned Special Government Pleader for the second respondent and with the consent of parties, the writ petition itself is taken up fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bankers, who were secured creditors and they had brought the property for sale, after long drawn litigation and the petitioner's vendor had purchased the same for valid consideration through the Debts Recovery Tribunal and a certificate of sale was issued in his favour. Therefore, as long as the said certificate of sale has not been cancelled or modified, the first respondent Department cannot have any lien over the property, when admittedly action was initiated by the first respondent only in 2006. 4. At this stage, it would be worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case in 1.D.Senthil Kumar 2.C.P.Senthil 3.C.P.Sakthivel vs. 1. The Commercial Tax Officer, Brough Road, Erode 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hands of the appellants was free of the charge and it is not open to the first respondent to enforce the liabilities of the defaulting company in this manner against the appellants. 5. Further, in the decision in the case of Senthil Kumar vs. Assistant Commissioner, Chennai and Others, in W.P.No.9928 of 2009, dated 22.12.2010, the Hon'ble Division Bench, in somewhat identical circumstances, has held as follows: 17. However in this case, the property was sold under the provision of SARFAESI Act for non-payment of dues to the Bank, the Third Respondent which brought the property for auction through tender-cum-auction sale on 19.5.2008; The Sale Certificate was also issued on 19.5.2008 and possession and also stated to be given t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
