9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Government [under the BST Act/MVAT Act/MGST Act] to appropriate the amount realized by the sale of a secured asset? - whether dues accruing to a department of the Government ought to be repaid first by reason of first charge created over any property by operation of law (viz. the legislation in force in Maharashtra) giving such dues precedence over the dues of a secured creditor? - HELD THAT:- Bare perusal of the 2016 Amending Act would show that the dues of the Central/State Governments were in the specific contemplation of the Parliament while it amended the RDDB Act and the SARFAESI Act, both of which make specific reference to debts and all revenues, taxes, cesses and other rates payable to the Central Government or State Government or local authority and ordains that the dues of a secured creditor will have priority , i.e., take precedence - The rights of such of the first charge holders accorded by several legislations enacted by the State, having regard to the language in which section 26E is couched, would rank subordinate to the right of the secured creditor as defined in section 2(1)(zd) subject, of course, to compliance with the other provisions of the statute. Acce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of section 26E of the SARFAESI Act for want of CERSAI registration, cannot fall back on section 31B of the RDDB Act to claim priority - the overwhelming factor of determination of a lis by the DRT has to be given its due worth and hence, the benefit of priority that section 31B envisages is for a secured creditor who institutes proceedings under the RDDB Act and is successful in having an interim or final determination in its favour that a sum is due and payable (in section 31B) as distinguished from the debts due (in section 26E). Section 31B of the RDDB Act being a substantive provision, it cannot be invoked by a secured creditor faced with the disability posed by section 26E of the SARFAESI Act - without recourse having been taken to the procedure envisaged in the RDDB Act for recovery of its dues and without there being a determination of its claim by the DRT to the effect that any sum due from the borrower is payable to it, a secured creditor is not entitled to invoke the provisions of section 31B. Whether the priority of interest contemplated by section 26E of the SARFAESI Act could be claimed by a secured creditor without registration of the security interest with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own to law, i.e., by a proclamation, once Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI Act or section 31B, as the case may be, has been enforced, the dues of the secured creditor surely would have priority . If the immovable property of the defaulter is shown to have been attached in accordance with law prior to Chapter IVA of the SARFAESI Act, or for that matter section 31B of the RDDB Act, being enforced, and such attachment is followed by a proclamation according to law, the priority accorded by section 26E of the former and section 31B of the latter would not get attracted. Whether an auction purchaser of a secured asset would be liable to pay the dues of the department in order to obtain a clear and marketable title to the property having purchased the same on as is where is and whatever there is basis ? - HELD THAT:- Notwithstanding the duty of the authorized officer to indicate in the sale advertisement inviting bids the encumbrance(s) attached to the immovable property, i.e., the secured asset, as known to the secured creditor, if at all any detail in regard to such encumbrance(s) is not indicated but the sale is expressly made on as is where is, whatever there is basis , the transferee sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P a/w Mr. B.V. Samant - AGP for State in W.P.No.2720/2021, W.P.No.2336/2021, W.P.No.6297/ 2021 and W.P.No.3120/ 2021. Mr. P. P. Kakade, GP a/w Mr. M. M. Pable - AGP for State in WP/2251/2021. Mr. P. P. Kakade, GP a/w Mrs. R. A. Salunkhe - AGP for State in WP/2248/2021. JUDGMENT: INTRODUCTION 1. A Division Bench of this Court (cor. Chief Justice and M.S. Karnik, J.) while considering this batch of writ petitions was of the view that the issues emerging for decision therein can be advantageously heard and disposed of by a larger Bench. In deference to the order dated 25th November 2021 passed by such Bench and in exercise of power conferred on the Chief Justice by rule 8 of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, this larger Bench was constituted. The parties were put on notice and heard at length on multiple legal and factual issues. 2. The controversy lies in a narrow compass, with the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002 (hereafter "SARFAESI Act", for short) and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereafter "RDDB Act", for short) taking centre-stage. Who between a secured credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. BACKGROUND FEATURES 5. It would be appropriate to preface our opinion by briefly tracing the developments in the field of law relating to recovery of dues of banks and financial institutions (hereafter "lenders", for short, when referred to collectively) relevant for the purpose of answering the questions of law formulated infra. 6. Prior to 1993, for effecting recovery of debts, the lenders were required to institute suits regulated by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter "CPC", for short). However, the normal time-consuming process of recovery through suits did not suit the recovery of dues. Multifarious problems surfaced. Drying up of financial liquidity, thereby retarding economic progress, emerged as the prime problem. Without recovery of the dues, the lenders found it difficult to lend further financial assistance. It is at this stage that the Parliament enacted the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereafter "RDBFI Act", for short) making provisions for establishment of Tribunals for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to the lenders and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The RDB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia), the Court was, inter alia, seized of the question as to whether withdrawal of an original application instituted in terms of the first proviso to section 19(1) of the RDBFI Act (inserted by Amending Act 30 of 2004) is a condition precedent for taking recourse to the SARFAESI Act. The Court noticed the reasons for enactment of the SARFAESI Act and made a deep analysis of both the Acts. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of Order XXIII, CPC and the relevant two enactments, the Court answered this question in the negative. 11. Within a couple of years therefrom came the decision reported in (2009) 4 SCC 94 (Central Bank of India vs. State of Kerala). The questions arising out of the several civil appeals for decision were, whether section 38C of the BST Act, 1959 and section 26B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and similar provisions contained in other State legislations by which first charge was created on the property of the dealer or such other person, who is liable to pay sales tax, etc., are inconsistent with the provisions contained in the RDBFI Act for recovery of 'debt' and the SARFAESI Act for enforcement of 'security interest', a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... à-vis Section 69 or Section 69-A of the Transfer of Property Act. In terms of that subsection, a secured creditor can enforce security interest without intervention of the court or tribunal and if the borrower has created any mortgage of the secured asset, the mortgagee or any person acting on his behalf cannot sell the mortgaged property or appoint a Receiver of the income of the mortgaged property or any part thereof in a manner which may defeat the right of the secured creditor to enforce security interest. This provision was enacted in the backdrop of Chapter VIII of the Narasimham Committee's Second Report in which specific reference was made to the provisions relating to mortgages under the Transfer of Property Act. 113. In an apparent bid to overcome the likely difficulty faced by the secured creditor which may include a bank or a financial institution, Parliament incorporated the non obstante clause in Section 13 and gave primacy to the right of secured creditor vis-à-vis other mortgagees who could exercise rights under Sections 69 or 69-A of the Transfer of Property Act. However, this primacy has not been extended to other provisions like Section 38-C of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 26-B of the Kerala Act also contain non obstante clauses and give statutory recognition to the priority of the State's charge over other debts, which was recognised by Indian High Courts even before 1950. In other words, these sections and similar provisions contained in other State legislations not only create first charge on the property of the dealer or any other person liable to pay sales tax, etc. but also give them overriding effect over other laws. *** 126. While enacting the DRT Act and the Securitisation Act, Parliament was aware of the law laid down by this Court wherein priority of the State dues was recognised. If Parliament intended to create first charge in favour of banks, financial institutions or other secured creditors on the property of the borrower, then it would have incorporated a provision like Section 529-A of the Companies Act or Section 11(2) of the EPF Act and ensured that notwithstanding series of judicial pronouncements, dues of banks, financial institutions and other secured creditors should have priority over the State's statutory first charge in the matter of recovery of the dues of sales tax, etc. However, the fact of the matter is that n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ict or inconsistency or overlapping between the provisions of the DRT Act and the Securitisation Act on the one hand and Section 38-C of the Bombay Act and Section 26-B of the Kerala Act on the other and the non obstante clauses contained in Section 34(1) of the DRT Act and Section 35 of the Securitisation Act cannot be invoked for declaring that the first charge created under the State legislation will not operate qua or affect the proceedings initiated by banks, financial institutions and other secured creditors for recovery of their dues or enforcement of security interest, as the case may be. 131. The Court could have given effect to the non obstante clauses contained in Section 34(1) of the DRT Act and Section 35 of the Securitisation Act vis-à-vis Section 38-C of the Bombay Act and Section 26-B of the Kerala Act and similar other State legislations only if there was a specific provision in the two enactments creating first charge in favour of the banks, financial institutions and other secured creditors but as Parliament has not made any such provision in either of the enactments, the first charge created by the State legislations on the property of the dealer or any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and Financial Institutions", resulting in the rechristening of the RDBFI Act as the RDDB Act. 14. The decision in Central Bank of India (supra) [holding, inter alia, that the RDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act do not contain provisions giving priority to the dues of banks, financial institutions and other secured creditors over the first charge created under State legislations because Parliament did not intend to give priority to the dues of private creditors over sovereign debt of the State (paragraph 126) and also that if Parliament intended to give such priority then provisions similar to those contained in the referred Central legislations would have been incorporated in the RDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act (paragraph 129)] is presumed to have acted as a catalyst leading to the enactment of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016, being Amendment Act No. XLIV of 2016 (hereafter "2016 Amending Act", for short). The Statement of Objects and Reasons as contained in the Bill for the 2016 Amending Act introduced in the Lok Sabha reads as follows: "Statement of Objects and Reasons The Recovery of Debts due to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate Tribunals. 4. The Bill also seeks to amend the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, so as to exempt assignment of loans in favour of asset reconstruction companies from stamp duty and the Depositories Act, 1996 for facilitating transfer of shares held in pledge or on conversion of debt into shares in favour of banks and financial institutions. 5. The Bill aims to improve ease of doing business and facilitate investment leading to higher economic growth and development. 6. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives." 15. Section 31B incorporated in the RDDB Act by the 2016 Amending Act and introduced with effect from 1st September 2016, reads as follows: "31-B. Priority to secured creditors.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the rights of secured creditors to realise secured debts due and payable to them by sale of assets over which security interest is created, shall have priority and shall be paid in priority over all other debts and Government dues including revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due to the Central Government, State Government or local authority. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, it is hereby cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r than secured creditors as defined in clause (zd) of sub-section (1) of Section 2, for creation, modification or satisfaction of any security interest over any property of the borrower for the purpose of securing due repayment of any financial assistance granted by such creditor to the borrower. (2) From the date of notification under sub-section (1), any creditor including the secured creditor may file particulars of transactions of creation, modification or satisfaction of any security interest with the Central Registry in such form and manner as may be prescribed. (3) A creditor other than the secured creditor filing particulars of transactions of creation, modification and satisfaction of security interest over properties created in its favour shall not be entitled to exercise any right of enforcement of securities under this Act. (4) Every authority or officer of the Central Government or any State Government or local authority, entrusted with the function of recovery of tax or other Government dues and for issuing any order for attachment of any property of any person liable to pay the tax or Government dues, shall file with the Central Registry such attachment order w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... creditor shall be paid in priority over all other debts and all revenues, taxes, cesses and other rates payable to the Central Government or State Government or local authority. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, it is hereby clarified that on or after the commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), in cases where insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings are pending in respect of secured assets of the borrower, priority to secured creditors in payment of debt shall be subject to the provisions of that Code." 17. A reference was pending before the Full Bench of the Madras High Court prior to Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI Act being enforced. The said Full Bench by a short order reported in AIR 2017 Madras 67 [Asst. Commissioner (CT) vs. Indian Overseas Bank] disposed of the reference holding, inter alia, that: "1. The writ petitions have been listed before the Full Bench in pursuance of the reference order in W.P. No.6267 of 2006 and W.P. No.253 of 2011, in respect of the following issues: - 'a) As to whether the Financial Institution, which is a secured creditor, or the department of the government concerned, would have the 'Priority of Char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iority created by section 31B is not restricted to enforcement under the RDDB Act; section 31B recognizes priority generally. Referring to section 26E, it has further been contended that priority is also recognized by the SARFAESI Act. The secured creditors have, thus, contended that in view of amendments brought about by the 2016 Amending Act in both the Central enactments, i.e., the RDDB Act and the SARFAESI Act, they are entitled to assert priority over claims of the State sales tax department under the MVAT Act, both or either under section 31B of the RDDB Act and/or section 26E of the SARFAESI Act. 21. The secured creditors have further contended that there is no dispute that the Central Acts and the State legislations operate in different fields and there is no apparent repugnancy; on the contrary, the State legislations are clear to this extent that the same would yield to Central Acts creating first charge. We have been invited to read sections 37 and 38C of the MVAT Act and the BST Act, respectively, in support of such contention. 22. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to note section 37 of the MVAT Act. It reads: "Section 37: Liability under this Act to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is liable to pay to the Government shall be a first charge on the property of such taxable person or such person." "142. Miscellaneous Transitional Provisions (8)(a) where in pursuance of an assessment or adjudication proceedings instituted, whether before, on or after the appointed day under the existing law, any amount of tax, interest, fine or penalty becomes recoverable from the person, the same shall, unless recovered under the existing law, be recovered as an arrear of tax under this Act and the amount so recovered shall not be admissible as input tax credit under this Act; ***" 26. It has also been contended that in the event this Court holds that section 26E of the SARFAESI Act is not applicable without registration of the security interest, the secured creditors are entitled to the reliefs claimed on account of statutory priority of charge accorded to them in terms of section 31B of the RDDB Act. According to the secured creditors, bare perusal of section 31B of the RDDB Act would evidence the fact that even de hors registration of security interest under the SARFAESI Act, and even prior to section 26E of the SARFAESI Act coming into force on 24th January 2020, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26E was brought into effect on 24th January 2020. In the above stated background of facts and circumstances and especially in the light of the manner, object and purpose with which the said sections were introduced into the statute books, it could never have been the intention of the legislature that if a secured creditor resorted to the provisions of the RDDB Act for realisation of debts due to it, they would have the benefit of priority in repayment of debts while, if they resorted to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, they would not. Such an interpretation would lead to arbitrariness and would fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (iv) A bare perusal of the other sections contained in the said Chapter VI (viz. sections 34, 35, 36 and 37) make it clear that they do not all apply only to proceedings before the DRT or proceedings initiated under the RDDB Act. 28. Having recorded the contentions advanced on behalf the secured creditors, to the extent we found them to be relevant, we now proceed to record the submissions advanced on behalf of the State Government and its departments. 29. First, the arguments advanced by Mr. Sonpal, learned special counsel for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State under section 37 of the MVAT Act survives. 32. Mr. Sonpal continued by contending that there is no conflict between section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and section 37 of the MVAT Act, and the non-obstante clauses in section 37 of MVAT Act and section 26E in SARFAESI Act operate in altogether different fields. A non-obstante clause in a section, according to him, only overrides a contrary provision in any other law if it is in the same field. Since the sphere and field of operations of section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and section 37 of the MVAT Act are different, in absence or presence of conflict, both survive in their respective fields. Viewed from a different angle, if the dues of the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority are to be affected by section 26E, the same must arise from List I or List III and not List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. The SARFAESI Act and more particularly section 26E has Item 45 of List I as its source whereas Item 54 of List II is the source of existence of section 37 of the MVAT Act. Hence, there cannot be operation of nonobstante clause against one another in different fields of legislation. 33. Next, Mr. Sonpal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e person on account of tax, interest or penalty which he is liable to pay to the Government shall be a first charge on the property of such taxable person. Under section 142(8), dues under any existing law is recoverable as dues under the MGST Act. According to him, if the first charge is applicable to dues under the MGST Act and also the existing law on the appointed day, the non-obstante clause in the MGST Act shall override section 26E of the SARFAESI Act. 36. Finally, Mr. Sonpal contended that the pre-requisite of claiming benefit of section 26E of the SARFAESI Act is that the secured creditor has to register the security interest as provided in section 26B. In the absence of registration, section 26E does not come into operation or effect. 37. Ms. Jeejeebhoy, learned special counsel for the State in W.P. No.2935 of 2018 contended as follows: (i) The State has a statutory charge on the property of the dealer which the sales tax authorities are entitled to enforce by exercising the right to attach and sell the same for recovery of its outstanding dues notwithstanding introduction of section 26E in the SARFAESI Act and section 31B in the RDDB Act. (ii) Section 26E of the SA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffect of other charges/interest in the property including statutory first charges. Further, it has to be read harmoniously with the other provisions of the SARFAESI Act, including section 26C under which any sale of the property has to be subject to the claims of registered creditors including the Government. (vii) Having regard to the provision in section 13(2), except sections 69 and 69A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereafter "ToP Act", for short) all other provisions thereof would be applicable. In Transcore (supra), the Supreme Court has even clarified that the RDBFI Act does not rule out the applicability of the ToP Act. Section 100 of the ToP Act explains when a person is said to have 'charge' on the property and section 3 thereof, inter alia, explaining 'when a person is said to have notice' read with section 89A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908, as applicable in Maharashtra pursuant to the Maharashtra Amendment Act, 2010, throws light on at least one way in which a diligent purchaser of property would acquire notice of the statutory charge. (viii) The amendments in the RDDB Act and the SARFAESI Act would only apply prospectively and cannot affect rights crysta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attached to any specific property. This would further mean that even if the property is sold in disregard of the 'first charge' applicable to it, the mortgagee of the property may claim the entire sale price but the 'first charge' on such property will not be wiped out. The person dealing with such property having 'first charge' will be bound by it. 40. It was further contended that had the Parliament intended to give equality to mortgage dues of bankers to 'first charge' holder of tax dues, it would have done so specifically and would not have used the words 'in priority'. Regarding the aspect of reading the intention of the Parliament, the observations in Central Bank of India (supra) in paragraph ns. 131 to 136 were relied upon. 41. Mr. Samant made an endeavor to explain the working of the MVAT Act. According to him, tax under the MVAT Act is levied on every 'dealer' on account of sales transacted by the dealer in the particular year. As such, the tax is on the sale amount and is over and above the sale price. The 'dealer' recovers the amount from the 'transferor' of goods or the ultimate purchaser. As such, the 'dealer' recovers the amount of tax from a third person and keep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easily come to know the tax liability of the defaulting 'dealer'. The bank/secured creditor can also come to know by using the same method. In fact, the bank and the third-party purchaser are deemed to have notice of such charge if they try to find out information about the title of the property. In this behalf, the meaning of "a person is said to have notice" is given in section 3 of the ToP Act. The said definition shows that a person should blame himself for his negligence for not making necessary enquiry with the Tax Department before entering into any kind of transaction about the property of the defaulter. 43. Ms. Jyoti Chavan, learned Addl. Govt. Pleader adopted the submissions of Mr. Narula, Ms. Jeejeebhoy and Mr. Samant, hereinbefore recorded. THE QUESTIONS 44. Keeping in view the rival submissions, we have considered it appropriate to formulate the following substantial questions of law for answers: a. Having regard to the statutory provisions under consideration, does a secured creditor (as defined in the SARFAESI Act and the RDDB Act) have a prior right over the relevant department of the Government [under the BST Act/MVAT Act/MGST Act] to appropriate the amount re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M. G. Engineers and Contractor Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) was called upon to decide a challenge made to an attachment order dated 19th April 2017 by the Sales Tax Officer, respondent no. 3. The attached property was auctioned by ICICI Bank, respondent no. 5, though in view of section 47 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the department had first charge on the property. The learned Judge was called upon to consider as the first issue whether the amended provisions of section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and section 31B of the RDDB Act would apply to the present case having regard to the fact that such provisions were incorporated in the respective Central enactments in 2016, whereas, the attachment order was issued in the year 2014. The learned Judge recorded that the parties did not claim retrospective operation of the amended provisions; even otherwise, perusal of the amended provisions did not show the same and, thus, the same were found to apply prospectively. The learned judge was of the further view that property already attached towards recovery of State dues cannot be nullified by a subsequent legislation when the amending provisions had not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property creates right even as per the ToP Act and if intention of the Parliament was to nullify first charge, the amended provisions of the RDDB Act and the SARFAESI Act would have been couched in language as indicated in Central Bank of India (supra). Interestingly, when G. M. G. Engineers and Contractor Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was decided, neither had section 26E been brought on the statute book nor does it appear that any proceedings under the RDDB Act had been initiated. 48. Having noted what was laid down in G. M. G. Engineers and Contractor Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we move on to notice the decision reported in 2018 (55) GSTR 2010 (M.P.) (Bank of Baroda vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore). There, a learned Single Judge presiding over a bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore had before His Lordship a challenge by the petitioning bank to a sale proclamation dated 17th July 2017 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer. Such proclamation was the result of action initiated to recover commercial tax dues from a company which was a debtor of the petitioning bank. The learned Judge considered the provisions contained in section 31B of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hinery in taking possession of and attempting to sell certain properties for alleged arrears of sales tax and value added tax from its respective owners which the bank/financial institutions claimed to be their secured assets consequent to equitable mortgages having been created over them in their favour towards security for financial facilities/assistance availed of by its owners. 51. While the petitioning banks/financial institutions claimed primary rights as secured creditors to proceed against the properties in question under section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and section 31B of the RDDB Act, the revenue claimed first charge over such properties under section 26B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and section 38 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. After considering various decisions, the learned Judge recorded as follows: "33. A close survey of the afore judgments thus renders it beyond contest that the words `First Charge' and 'priority in payment of debts' are virtually synonymous and means the same, except for its semantic variation on account of differing phraseology. In both events, the holder obtains the privilege of recovery before anyone else and hence, whether it is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... create a better right in favour of the Banks/Financial Institutions, which is superior to that enjoyed by the Revenue under the KGST Act/KVAT Act. 41. As has been extracted above, Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act provides that the debts due to any secured creditor shall be paid in priority over all other debts and all revenue, taxes, cesses and other rates payable to the Central Government or State Government or Local Authority. Section 31B of the RDB Act takes this one step forward and elevates the right of the secured creditors to realise their debts, by sale of the secured assets, to enjoy priority and then re-affirms that such debts will be paid in priority over the revenue, taxes, cesses and other rates payable to the Central Government or State Government or Local Authority. It is thus irrefragible (sic, irrefragable) and in fact, expressly conceded to by the learned Additional Advocate General that the Banks/Financial Institutions have the First Right to have their debts extinguished; but, as has been recorded above, the Revenue merely claims that they have right to sell the property first. This argument again is flawed because the 'First Charge' creating no right over the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is any charge, the same would operate. 54. Giving due regard to a decision rendered previously by the presiding Judge of the Division Bench, it was held in Kalupur Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) by the Division Bench that it had no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the first priority over the secured asset shall be of the petitioning cooperative bank and not of the State Government by virtue of section 48 of the relevant VAT Act. This resulted in setting aside of the impugned attachment dated 22nd January 2018 and the communication dated 19th April 2018, whereby first charge over the property was claimed. 55. We have noted that the decision in Kalupur Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) was rendered on 23rd September 2019, i.e., prior to enforcement of section 26E of the SARFAESI Act. This decision supports the contentions of the secured creditors before us. We, however, wish to consider the law laid down in paragraph 57 of the decision at a later part of this judgment. 56. In the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in ASREC (India) Limited (supra), the controversy arose as to who between the petitioner and the Sales Tax Officer would be ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken by 3 (three) Division Benches of 3 (three) High Courts and the view taken by the Full Bench of the fourth High Court. Prior to allowing the writ petition and quashing the impugned notice dated 13th November 2016 issued by the respondent no. 2 initiating a process for auction under the MLR Code, the Division Bench recorded in paragraphs 20 and 21 as follows: "20. The only contention which needs to be noted which was made by learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 which was not made before the four learned Benches of the four High Courts in their opinions above noted, is that Chapter IVA which was inserted in SARFAESI 2002 comprising Sections 26B to 26E warrants a record to be made in the Central Register by the Central Registry creating a security interest. As per learned Counsel as per Sub-section (2) of Section 26B which is a part of Chapter IVA a secured creditor has to ensure that the security interest is recorded in the record of the Central Registry. The argument therefore was that unless this is done, the priority of interest contemplated by Section 26E would not be applicable. 21. The argument is without any substance because the law declared in the four opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk had not registered the security interest with the Central registry as required under section 26D of the SARFAESI Act and, as such, the debts due to the petitioning bank cannot be paid in priority over the tax dues of the respondent no. 2. It was further contended that section 26E of the SARFAESI Act having been notified on 24th January 2020, the same is effective prospectively. Also, it was contended that there being an assertion of claim by the respondents 1 and 2 for recovery of tax dues and an attachment having been initiated to protect the interest of the revenue, contentions of the petitioning bank were liable to be rejected. 63. The Division Bench, after considering various provisions of the SARFAESI Act as well as section 31B of the RDDB Act, proceeded to observe in paragraphs 34 and 35 as follows: "34. In our considered view the facts in the case at hand being similar to the facts in the case of ASREC (India) Limited (Supra) that decision would squarely be applicable to the facts of this case that if any Central statute creates priority of a charge in favour of a secured creditor, the same will rank above the charge in favour of a State for a tax due under the value a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne Bom 9527 (Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.). The Division Bench consequently held that the provisions of section 26E of the SARFAESI Act would prevail over those contained in section 37(1) of the MVAT Act. While the Division Bench proceeded to add a few more reasons why section 26E would prevail over section 37(1) of the MVAT Act, it considered 'charge' as defined in section 100 of the ToP Act and held that for such charge to become effective, it is necessary that the transferee ought to have had prior notice of such charge, be it either express, implied or constructive or the prior existence of such charge is shown to have been within the knowledge of the transferee. Section 55 of the ToP Act was further referred to. The Division Bench held that such provision creates an obligation upon every seller to disclose to the buyer any material defect in the property or his title, of which he is aware and which the buyer cannot, with ordinary care, discover and pay all public charges and discharge all encumbrances on the property then existing. The Division Bench then proceeded to consider how the Supreme Court in its decision reported in (2009) 4 SCC 486 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reference as per law and contract, if any, as the case may be. Thus the dues under Section 37(1) of the MVAT Act, 2002, being a statutory charge on the property, would also be recoverable by sale of the property, and that puts a liability upon the auction purchaser, who, in case he wants an encumbrance free title, will have to clear such dues." Insofar as purchase of a property on 'as is where is and what is there is basis' is concerned, the following observations were made: - "36. Thus the purchase of the property on 'as is where is and what is there is' basis, would mean that the property was being had by the auction purchaser, with all its rights, obligations and liabilities, whatsoever they may be, which would include, all dues, impositions, restrictions as may have been imposed upon the same and consequent to acquiring title to the property, cannot be permitted to quibble out of it, on the alleged plea of not being noticed about any such liability/imposition. In case the auction purchaser, did not want to have the property, with its liabilities, he ought to have insisted on having the same free of all encumbrances, altogether, before bidding for the same. That apart, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istrar and appointing other officers for discharging the Registrar's functions under his superintendence and direction; iii. Maintenance of a 'Central Register' of transactions relating to securitization of financial assets, reconstruction of financial assets and creation of security interest; iv. Requirement of filing of transactions relating to securitisation, reconstruction and creation of security interest; v. Reporting by asset reconstruction companies regarding satisfaction of their security interest; and vi. Right to inspect the particulars of securitisation, reconstruction and creation of security interest transactions by any person. 71. Section 26A was inserted in Chapter IV of the SARFAESI Act by an amendment w.e.f. January 15, 2013. It provided for rectification by the Central Government in matters of registration, modification and satisfaction, etc. of the registered transactions. 72. Sections 20A and 20B were inserted in Chapter IV by the 2016 Amending Act w.e.f. September 1, 2016. While the former was intended to integrate registration systems with the Central Registry, the latter pertained to delegation of powers. 73. The 2016 Amending Act also introduce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration, the transaction between the lender and the borrower largely remained secret. There was no way anyone else could get an inkling thereof, until the provisions for CERSAI registration were enacted. It was wellnigh possible for a dishonest borrower to conceal the transaction of mortgage and sell the mortgaged property to an innocent third party by creating document of title leading to the purchaser unknowingly incurring a liability despite paying the consideration. In such a situation, the purchaser would be chased by the lending bank and necessarily to bear the brunt of its efforts geared towards recovery of its dues. Instances were also not rare of more than one loan being sanctioned by different banks on the strength of mortgage of a single property without one bank knowing of a prior mortgage with another bank. This brewed multiple funding in respect of one property, making it difficult for lenders to recover debts and consequent breeding of non-performing assets. Notwithstanding the concept of principal mortgagee and a puisne mortgagee, the minimum requirement of the mortgagee having the means to gauge and assess the worth and status of the property mortgaged before creati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the MVAT Act and the MGST Act, is traceable in at least 4 (four) other legislations in the State of Maharashtra. Section 212 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, section 141 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, section 109 of the Maharashtra Town and Country Planning Act, 1966 and section 331(1)(iii)(b) of the MLR Code, 1966, are the various sources of creation of first charge on property/plot. It would equally be important to note what section 169 of the MLR Code provides. For facility of appreciation, all such provisions are quoted hereunder: Section 212 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: "212. Property taxes to be a first charge on premises on which they are assessed Property taxes due under this Act in respect of any building or land shall, subject to the prior payment of the land revenue, if any, due to the State Government thereupon be a first charge in the case of any building or land held immediately from the Government upon the interest in such building or land of the person liable for such taxes and upon the goods and chattels, if any, found within or upon such building or land, and belonging to such person; and, in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id on demand on the day on which it becomes due or on the day fixed by the Planning Authority, shall be recoverable by the Planning Authority from the defaulter as if they were arrears of land revenue. (3) If any question arises whether a sum is due to the Planning Authority within the meaning of sub-section (2), it shall be referred to a tribunal constituted by the State Government consisting of one or more persons not connected with the Planning Authority or any authority subordinate to it or with the person by whom the sum is alleged to be payable which the tribunal shall, after making such inquiry as it may deem fit and after giving to the person by whom the sum is alleged to be payable, an opportunity of being heard, decide the question; and the decision of the tribunal thereon shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court or before any other authority. (4) The procedure to be followed by the tribunal in deciding questions referred to it under sub-section (2) shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government." Section 169 of the MLR Code: "169. Claims of State Government to have precedence over all others (1) The arrears of land revenue due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statutory intendment, can be made subordinate or subservient to a paramount charge such as arrears of land revenue. We, therefore, are unable to accept the argument of the State/respondents that since neither the SARFAESI Act nor the RDDB Act uses the words 'first charge' but the word 'priority', such 'priority' cannot have precedence over 'first charge' created by the State legislations. 83. However, notwithstanding that section 169(1) of the MLR Code is the dominant legislation and does not expressly say that it would be subordinate or subservient to any Central Act creating 'first charge', nothing really turns on it. The express language of section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and section 31B of the RDDB Act, wherever applicable, is sufficient to off-set the 'paramount charge' created by sub-section (1) of section 169. Similarly, even if there were no express intendment in the relevant provisions of the BST Act (section 38C) and the MVAT Act (section 37) to the effect that such provisions would be subordinate to any Central Act creating 'first charge', the same would obviously have to be read, invoked and exercised subject to section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and section 31B of the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here the Court observed: "10. However, the Crown's preferential right to recovery of debts over other creditors is confined to ordinary or unsecured creditors. The common law of England or the principles of equity and good conscience (as applicable to India) do not accord the Crown a preferential right for recovery of its debts over a mortgagee or pledgee of goods or a secured creditor. It is only in cases where the Crown's right and that of the subject meet at one and the same time that the Crown is in general preferred. Where the right of the subject is complete and perfect before that of the King commences, the rule does not apply, for there is no point of time at which the two rights are at conflict, nor can there be a question which of the two ought to prevail in a case where one, that of the subject, has prevailed already. In Giles v. Grover it has been held that the Crown has no precedence over a pledgee of goods. In Bank of Bihar v. State of Bihar the principle has been recognised by this Court holding that the rights of the pawnee who has parted with money in favour of the pawnor on the security of the goods cannot be extinguished even by lawful seizure of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ights amongst the secured creditors. Merely because Section 529 does not specifically provide for the rights of priorities over the mortgaged assets, that, in our opinion, would not mean that the provisions of Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act in relation to a company, which has undergone liquidation, shall stand obliterated. 45. If we were to accept that inter se priority of secured creditors gets obliterated by merely responding to a public notice wherein it is specifically stated that on his failure to do so, he will be excluded from the benefits of the dividends that may be distributed by the Official Liquidator, the same would lead to deprivation of the secured creditor of his right over the security and would bring him on a par with an unsecured creditor. The logical sequitur of such an inference would be that even unsecured creditors would be placed on a par with the secured creditors. This could not have been the intendment of the legislation." 88. Bare perusal of the 2016 Amending Act would show that the dues of the Central/State Governments were in the specific contemplation of the Parliament while it amended the RDDB Act and the SARFAESI Act, both of which ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the SARFAESI Act. 91. The further contention of learned counsel for the State/respondents that 'enforcement of first charge' and 'shall be paid in priority over all other debts' are not synonymous and that the latter is subordinate to the former, in our view, is misconceived. If enforced, 'first charge' would ultimately lead to priority in payment only. Where the end result is the same, mere change in expression would not make the provisions different. While agreeing with the opinion of the learned Judge of the Kerala High Court in State Bank of India vs. State of Kerala (supra), we reject such contention. 92. In view of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that the dues of a secured creditor (subject of course to CERSAI registration) and subject to proceedings under the I & B Code would rank superior to the dues of the relevant department of the State Government. ANSWER TO QUESTION (c) 93. There are more reasons than one for which we are inclined to answer the question in the affirmative. 94. That the intention of the Legislature, at the first instance, has to be gathered from the language employed by it in the statute in question, is beyond any doubt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fitably refer to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1969) 1 SCC 609 (Sukhram Singh vs. Harbheji). There, in paragraph 12, law is laid down in the following words: "12. Now a law is undoubtedly retrospective if the law says so expressly but it is not always necessary to say so expressly to make the law retrospective. There are occasions when a law may be held to be retrospective in operation. Retrospection is not to be presumed for the presumption is the other way but many statutes have been regarded as retrospective without a declaration. Thus it is that remedial statutes are always regarded as prospective but declaratory statutes are considered retrospective. Similarly sometimes statutes have a retrospective effect when the declared intention is clearly and unequivocally manifest from the language employed in the particular law or in the context of connected provisions. It is always a question whether the Legislature has sufficiently expressed itself. To find this one must look at the general scope and purview of the Act and the remedy the Legislature intends to apply in the former state of the law and then determine what the Legislature intended to do. This line of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iority in payment is read to apply with retrospective effect, it could bring about at least one perceivable disastrous consequence. Actions taken under Chapter III of the SARFAESI Act including measures to take over possession of the secured asset prior to Chapter IV-A becoming operational, i.e., without CERSAI registration of the security interest sought to be enforced, could be challenged as ultra vires the SARFAESI Act itself. If such a challenge were to succeed, there could be sort of a cloudburst of complications. A reading that Chapter IV-A applies prospectively would, however, save all such exercises of enforcement of unregistered security interest, thereby not being liable to interdiction on the ground of absence of registration of the security interest upon a challenge being thrown by a defaulting borrower. 102. We, thus, agree with the decisions in Bank of Baroda (supra) and ASREC (INDIA) Ltd. (supra) and answer the question by holding that the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI Act would have application prospectively from the date the same was brought into force, i.e., January 24 2020. ANSWER TO QUESTION (d) 103. We are left with no option but to answer this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pears. 108. Much has been argued on behalf of the secured creditors by referring to the non-obstante clause in section 31B of the RDDB Act. Before adverting our attention to such section, it would not be inapposite to consider how a statutory provision beginning with a non-obstante clause ought to be construed. 109. In the decision reported in AIR 1984 SC 1022 (Union of India vs. G.M. Kokil), a non-obstante clause has been held to be a legislative device, which is usually employed to give overriding effect to certain provisions over some contrary provisions that may be found in the same enactment or in some other enactment, that is to say, to avoid the operation and effect of all contrary provisions. 110. The Supreme Court in its decision reported in AIR 1987 SC 117 (Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs. Ashalata S. Guram), while considering the provisions in section 15A of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, had the occasion to hold as follows: "68. A clause beginning with the expression 'notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in some particular provision in the Act or in some particular Act or in any law for the time being in force, or in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect to, to the extent Parliament intended and not beyond the same. 113. Back home, there is this decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported (2008) 6 Mah LJ 941 (FB) (Mohd. Riyazur Rehman Siddiqui vs Deputy Director of Health Services), where it has been held that the wide meaning of the nonobstante clause and the enacting words following it may not be curtailed when the use of wide language accords with the object of the Act. 114. The text of section 31B of the RDDB, beginning with a non-obstante clause, has been noticed above. Also, bearing the principles laid down in the aforesaid authorities with regard to the effect or impact of a non-obstante clause, the conclusion is inescapable that section 31B cannot be pressed into service in all cases where a secured creditor seeks enforcement of a security interest by taking recourse to the SARFAESI Act. The non-obstante clause in section 31B would kick in should there be proceedings before the DRT and in furtherance of orders passed therein, a process is initiated for recovery of the dues of the secured creditor. We are inclined to be restrictive in our view that in such cases only, where the proceedings originate in the DRT un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffect provide a special manner in which a secured creditor may enforce its security interest in supersession of others, without the intervention of courts. That special manner, inter alia, includes a prior CERSAI registration. In such view of the matter, enforcement of security interest under the SARFAESI Act by any other method is, if not expressly, impliedly barred. The provision of section 31B of RDDB Act cannot be invoked to undo the disability that is expressly imposed by section 26D of the SARFAESI Act, more so when both these provisions have been brought on the respective statute books by the same 2016 Amending Act (notwithstanding that the two sections were made operative on different dates). 117. Thirdly, we need to remember that both the enactments, i.e., the RDDB Act and the SARFAESI Act, are special enactments laying down special but separate schemes for recovery of money from defaulting borrowers. One cannot be permitted to take a part of a special scheme and apply it to a separate special scheme. It could not have been the legislative intent that a secured creditor, faced with the disability arising out of an absence of a CERSAI registration after having illegally ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditor shall be paid in priority over all other debts", the words used in section 31B though resemble section 26E are not a mirror image of the latter. Section 31B ordains that "the rights of secured creditors to realise secured debts due and payable to them by sale of assets over which security interest is created, shall have priority and shall be paid in priority over all other debts" (underlining ours). Section 26E neither refers to a right of the secured creditor nor to debts "due and payable". This is because in an action under Chapter III of the SARFAESI Act, which culminates in sale of a secured asset, there may not be intervention by courts in all cases. A secured creditor's statutory right to enforce a security interest under the SARFAESI Act is normally not interfered till such time possession of the secured asset ~ physical or symbolic ~ is taken. The debt due to the secured creditor also does not invariably become payable upon a determination by the DRT under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. If a borrower chooses not to approach the DRT, the second creditor may set the process in motion by initiating action under rule 8 of the 2002 Rules. However, the situation is differe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SARFAESI Act, the context in which such provisions were enacted must be unfailingly noticed. While placing reliance on similar provisions of a different statute to decipher the real legislative intent behind a certain provision of a given statute may be permissible in certain cases where the context of both the statutes match, but such an exercise would surely not be permissible if the contexts vary. Here, section 31B of the RDDB Act has to be seen in the context of the original proceedings instituted before the DRT and a determination having been obtained from the DRT in such proceedings. The SARFAESI Act being a statute which permits lenders to take possession of secured assets without judicial intervention, a greater degree of protection against arbitrary action by lenders and a corresponding higher standard of care to be taken by such lenders has now been prescribed. This position, emerging from section 26D of the SARFAESI Act, underscores the importance of CERSAI registration of security interest and makes the legislative intent behind promoting CERSAI registration of security interest more conspicuous than the other provisions. We have not been shown any principle of interpre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g an interim or final determination in its favour that a sum is due and payable (in section 31B) as distinguished from the debts due (in section 26E). (c) section 31B of the RDDB Act being a substantive provision, it cannot be invoked by a secured creditor faced with the disability posed by section 26E of the SARFAESI Act; and (d) without recourse having been taken to the procedure envisaged in the RDDB Act for recovery of its dues and without there being a determination of its claim by the DRT to the effect that any sum due from the borrower is payable to it, a secured creditor is not entitled to invoke the provisions of section 31B. ANSWER TO QEUSTION (e) 129. The entire scheme of Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI Act, as introduced by the Amending Act of 2016, leaves no manner of doubt that the object for its introduction is salutary. We have, in fact, discussed the noble objects that introduction of Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI Act intends to achieve. The drastic power made available to a secured creditor by provisions contained in section 13 and the other provisions of the SARFAESI Act to dispossess the borrower/guarantor from the secured asset without intervention of Courts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Also, the point under consideration did not arise in G. M. G. Engineers and Contractor Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and in Bank of Baroda (supra) at all. Interestingly, the Division Bench itself noted in paragraph 20 of the decision in ASREC (India) Ltd. (supra) that the said point had not been raised before any of the other High Courts. In the setting of such a factual position, it seems to us that rejection of the contention, as if law had been declared in the 4 (four) opinions of the High Courts, occasioned either through an oversight or a misreading of the said decisions. 131. In our considered opinion, on the face of the express provisions in sections 26D and 26E of the SARFAESI Act and in the absence of any discussion on the object of introduction of Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI Act by the Division Bench in ASREC (India) Ltd. (supra), we are constrained to hold that a law has been declared which runs clearly contrary to the statutory mandate and, therefore, paragraph 21 of such decision does not represent the correct position of law. 132. The other Division Bench in State Bank of India vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) may not have considered sections 26D and 26E of the SARFAESI Act i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue where the return or revised return has been furnished without full payment thereof shall be paid forthwith. (ii) The amount of tax which it becomes necessary to pay on account of the reduction in set-off because of any contingency specified in the rules, shall be paid at the time prescribed for making payment of tax for the period in which such contingency occurs. (b) (i) The amount of tax due as per any order passed under any provision of this Act, for any period, less any sum already paid in respect of the said period; and (ii) the amount of interest or penalty or both, if any, levied under any provision of this Act; and (iii) the sum, if any, forfeited and the amount of fine, if any, imposed under the Act or rules; and (iv) the amount of tax, penalty and interest demanded in the context of excess availment of incentives or availment of incentives not due; and (v) any other amount due under this Act, shall be paid by the person or dealer or the person liable therefor into the Government treasury within thirty days from the date of service of the notice issued by the Commissioner in respect thereof: Provided that, the Commissioner may, in respect of any particu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d therein as follows: "3. *** 'a person is said to have notice' of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when but for wilful abstention from an enquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it. Explanation I.-Where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in, such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration or, where the property is not all situated in one sub-district, or where the registered instrument has been registered under subsection (2) of Section 30 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908) from the earliest date on which any memorandum of such registered instrument has been filed by any Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district any part of the property which is being acquired, or of the property wherein a share or interest is being acquired, is situated: Provided that- (1) the instrument has been registered and its registration completed in the manner prescribed by the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (Mah. XLI of 1966); (ii) the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax shall have and exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of the Additional Commissioner under the said Code; (iii) the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax shall have and exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of the Collector under the said Code; (iv) the Senior Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax shall have and exercise all the powers (except the powers of confirmation of sale and arrest and confinement of a defaulter in a civil jail) and perform, all the duties of the Assistant or Deputy Collector under the said Code; (v) the Assistant Commissioner and the Sales Tax Officer shall have and exercise all the powers (except the powers of confirmation of sale and arrest and confinement of a defaulter in a civil jail) and perform all the duties of the Tahsildar under the said Code. (2) Every notice issued or order passed in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) shall, for the purposes of sections 24, 25, 26, 27 and 85 be deemed to be a notice issued or an order passed under the said Act. The sections referred to in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n demands compliance by the Central Government, any State Government and any local authority entrusted with recovery of tax to file with the Central Registry any attachment order issued by it, avoidance of such compliance was attempted by referring to the fact that the form and manner of filing attachment orders have not yet been prescribed by rules framed under the SARFAESI Act and, therefore, sub-section (4) has still not been made operative. 150. The contention that rules are yet to be framed for making sub-section (4) of section 20B operational is wholly incorrect. By a notification dated 24th January 2020 issued by the Department of Financial Services in the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, published in the Gazette of India of even date, the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Central Registry) (Amendment) Rules, 2020 were duly notified whereby amendments were incorporated in the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Central Registry) Rules, 2011 (hereafter '2011 Rules', for short). In view of the amendments that have now been incorporated in the 2011 Rules with e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of the defaulter's immovable property is ordered in the manner ordained by the MLR Code and as prescribed by the MRLR Rules and due proclamation thereof is made, even the creation of charge on such immovable property may not be of any real significance, not to speak of demonstrating with reference to evidence that the transferee had actual or constructive notice of such charge. If there has been an attachment and a proclamation thereof has been made according to law prior to 24th January 2020 or 1st September 2016, i.e., the dates on which Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI Act and section 31B of the RDDB Act, respectively, were enforced, the department may claim that its dues be paid first notwithstanding the secured dues of the secured creditors; but in the absence of an order of attachment being made public in a manner known to law, i.e., by a proclamation, once Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI Act or section 31B, as the case may be, has been enforced, the dues of the secured creditor surely would have 'priority'. In other words, if the immovable property of the defaulter is shown to have been attached in accordance with law prior to Chapter IVA of the SARFAESI Act, or for that matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to discharge the encumbrances and any interest due thereon together with such additional amount that may be sufficient to meet the contingencies or further cost, expenses and interest as may be determined by him: Provided that if after meeting the cost of removing encumbrances and contingencies there is any surplus available out of the money deposited by the purchaser such surplus shall be paid to the purchaser within fifteen days from the date of finalization of the sale. (8) On such deposit of money for discharge of the encumbrances, the authorized officer shall issue or cause the purchaser to issue notices to the persons interested in or entitled to the money deposited with him and take steps to make the payment accordingly. (9) The authorized officer shall deliver the property to the purchaser free from encumbrances known to the secured creditor on deposit of money as specified in subrule (7) above." 158. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid rules admits of no doubt that the authorized officer while putting up an immovable property, i.e., the secured asset, for sale, is under a duty to notify, inter alia, the details of the encumbrances (in respect of such property that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the SARFAESI Act read with the 2011 Rules, consequences are bound to follow which have to be accepted by such department. 161. We, therefore, answer this question by observing that notwithstanding the duty of the authorized officer to indicate in the sale advertisement inviting bids the encumbrance(s) attached to the immovable property, i.e., the secured asset, as known to the secured creditor, if at all any detail in regard to such encumbrance(s) is not indicated but the sale is expressly made on "as is where is, whatever there is basis", the transferee shall be duty bound to deposit money for discharge of the encumbrance(s) provided, of course, that such liability may be overcome if he is in a position to disprove the claim of the department that he had no constructive notice of the charge, far less actual notice. 162. Having answered the substantial questions of law, we now proceed to decide the individual writ petitions. WRIT PETITION NO.436 OF 2021 AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO.868 OF 2022 163. Petitioner, Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd., is a nonbanking finance company notified under the SARFAESI Act. Petitioner had advanced a loan of Rs.9,06,85,020/- vide sanction Let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pay the tax dues. A notice was issued to the directors on 15th January 2019 calling upon them to show cause as to why action under section 44(6) of the MVAT Act should not be initiated. As none appeared to show cause, an order came to be passed on 30th January 2019 holding the respondents 2 and 3, the directors of the respondent no.1, jointly and severally liable to pay the sales tax dues of the respondent no.1. 169. It would be contextually relevant to note that the petitioner had registered the security interest over the secured asset with the Central Registry on 17th February 2015. A copy of the search report evidencing registration in CERSAI portal came to be filed along with the additional affidavit dated 23rd November, 2021. 170. Evidently, the respondent no.1, the dealer is not the owner of the secured asset. Respondents 6 to 9 professed to proceed against the secured asset by resorting to the special provision contained in section 44(6) of the MVAT Act. Section 44(6) of the MVAT Act, reads as under: "44(6) - Subject to the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, where any tax or other amount recoverable under this Act from a private company, whether existing or wound u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as of date of the enforcement of Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI Act was content with determination of the liability of the directors of the respondent no.1 and no action to enforce the liability so as to dislodge the superior claim of the secured creditor was taken. 176. We are thus inclined to allow the writ petition with the following orders: (a) The letter dated 9th March, 2018 addressed by respondent no.6 to the respondent no.5 stands quashed and set aside. (b) It is further declared that the order dated 30th January 2019 passed under section 44(6) of MVAT Act by the respondent no.6 against the respondents 2 and 3 does not constitute an embargo on the right of the petitioner to enforce the security interest in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules. (c) Interim Application No.868 of 2022 also stands disposed of. WRIT PETITION NO.2336 OF 2021 177. Petitioner is the purchaser of an immovable property situated at Survey No.379/1, admeasuring 4.21 hectares at Village Abitghar, Taluka Wada, Dist. Palghar (the secured asset) in an auction sale held by the respondent no.7 Bank, on 11th January 2021. Respondent No.7 had created security interest therein o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the record of rights of the secured asset. Evidently, the said entry No.1211 was recorded on 20th March 2022, post enforcement of Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI Act. Consequently, the said exercise does not displace the superior claim of the secured creditor with the enforcement of section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, on 24th January 2020. Even otherwise, the claim of the respondent no.1 partakes the character of a crown debt. 185. We have already noted that a crown debt enjoys no priority over the secured debt. Since the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not contain a provision like the one in section 37 of the MVAT Act, in a strict sense, there does not seem to be any scope for conflict between competing claims based on statutory provisions. 186. A factor which, however, assumes salience in this writ petition is the terms of sale. The communication dated 11th January 2021 (Exhibit B to the writ petition) accepting the bid of the petitioner, indicates that the e-auction was held on "as is where is and as is what is basis". 187. Mutation Entry No.1121 was recorded on 20th March, 2020. It could be urged that the petitioner had, in the least, a constructive notice of the purported charge of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to allow the writ petition, it is necessary to extend the time to adjudicate the stamp duty on the sale certificate and register the same. There are provisions in the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (sections 31 and 32) and the Registration Act, 1908 (sections 23 and 25) which stipulate the time for tendering the instrument for adjudication, determination of stamp duty thereon and registration of the instrument from the date of its execution. Since the petitioner had instantaneously lodged the sale certificate for adjudication, we are inclined to direct that the time commencing from the lodging of the said sale certificate till the decision of this writ petition, be excluded from consideration in computing the statutory period for adjudication of the stamp duty and registration of the instrument. 193. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are inclined to allow the writ petition. 194. The writ petition stands allowed and it is ordered as follows: (a) Respondent no.2 is directed to adjudicate the stamp duty on the sale certificate in accordance with law and, thereafter, the respondent no.3 shall register the instrument, also in accordance with law. (b) The time commencing from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny response from them. The attachment dated 19th August 2017 constitutes an unjust impediment in the petitioner's endeavour to enforce the security interest by sale of the secured assets. Hence, this writ petition. 198. On the touchstone of the legal position, which we have attempted to expound hereinabove, we found that the security interest was registered with CERSAI in respect of Flat No.1002 on 24th April, 2017, and in respect of Flat Nos.1003 and 1004 on 22nd June, 2012 and, thus, with the enforcement of Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner's right to have priority in payment stood crystalized on 24th January 2020. In paragraph no.154, we have specifically observed that if the immovable property of the defaulter is shown to have been attached in accordance with law prior to Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI Act, or for that matter Section 31B of the RDDB Act, being enforced, and such attachment is followed by a proclamation according to law, the 'priority' accorded by section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, and section 31B of the RDDB Act, would not get attracted. 199. The case at hand, seems to be squarely governed by the aforesaid enunciation. We do not find any material o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the auction proclamation notice dated 8th March, 2019 (Exhibit H). Petitioner addressed a communication on 16th April 2019 to the respondent no.2 inter alia claiming right of priority in payment and asserted that it has also instituted proceedings, i.e., O.A.(L) No.396 of 2018 before the DRT for grant of recovery certificate. As the respondent No.2 did not remove the attachment, the petitioner was constrained to institute this writ petition seeking to quash the attachment order dated 1st December 2018 and the auction proclamation notice dated 16th March 2019. 205. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has registered the security interest with CERSAI on 13th July, 2007. The account of the respondent no.5 was declared NPA much before the order of attachment. In the circumstances, the provisions contained in section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, are squarely attracted and the statutory right of the petitioner cannot be defeated. 206. We are constrained to observe that the record does not equip the court to adjudicate this writ petition in the light of the position in law indicated above. 207. We have in terms observed that the provisions contained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Sales Tax, respondent no.1, to the Talathi, Tal. Baramati, Pune, to the effect that M/s. Hi-tech Engineering Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. owed a huge amount of Rs.10,12,38,061/- for the years 2010-11 to 2016-17 towards the sales tax dues and the arrears were likely to increase and, therefore, an encumbrance be noted on the land bearing Gut No.247 (the secured asset), which was the property of Mr. Sanjay J. Awate and Mr. Rajendra C. Ingawale (respondents 4 and 6), directors of M/s. Hi-tech Engineering Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. The said communication was followed by letter dated 29th December 2017. It seems vide Mutation Entry No.35661 dated 23rd December 2017, a charge of the sales tax department to the tune of Rs.10,12,38,061/- was entered on the secured asset (Exhibit D to the writ petition). 214. Petitioner took exception and addressed notices to the respondent no.1 on 18th February 2019 and 10th May 2019. In response thereto, the respondent no.1 claimed first charge over the secured asset under section 37 of the MVAT Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to set aside the encumbrance created by the respondent no.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were due. The materials on record, prima facie, indicate that M/s. Hi-Tech Engineering Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., of which the respondents 4 and 5 are the directors, was in arrears of huge amount towards sales tax since prior to advancement of the loan in question. A deed of simple mortgage dated 4th May 2016 under which the security interest came to be created in the secured asset, indicates that Hi-Tech Engineering Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. was one of the guarantors to the term loan of Rs.5 crore advanced to Mr. Sanjay Awate, its director. The assets of the dealer, Hi-Tech Engineering Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., enlisted in Schedule II were also mortgaged. 220. As indicated above, under less than four months, the accounts were declared NPA, i.e., on 5th August 2016 and action under Chapter III of the SARFAESI Act was initiated. This time of four months is too short for comfort. The allegation of creation of security interest fraudulently so as to defraud the claim of the revenue, in our view, warrants consideration. 221. Since the security interest in the secured asset came to be registered post enforcement of Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI Act, we deem it appropriate to dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 228. Amidst raging controversy over competing claims in respect of the secured assets, the petitioner no.1 claimed to have sold Flat Nos.601, 602 and 502, and issued auction notices to sell the secured assets, twice. Respondent no.1, on its part, issued auction notice to sell Flat No.503 on 1st January 2018 and Flat No.501 on 9th January 2018. The sale proclamation notice was issued on 17th January 2018 scheduling the sale on 22nd February 2018. 229. On 23rd January 2018, the respondent no.1 addressed a communication to the Chairman/Secretary of Omkareshwar Co-op. Housing Society Limited (in which the secured assets are situated) directing them not to grant no objection certificate for transfer of the secured assets. Thus, aggrieved by the aforesaid action on the part of the respondents, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking directions to the respondent no.2 to withdraw the impugned notices dated 1st January 2018 and 9th January 2018 as well as to restrain the respondents from proceeding with the auction of Flat Nos.501 and 503. It is also prayed that the petitioners be allowed to auction the secured assets to enforce its security interest. 230. During the pendenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... back, along with interest, in the event the writ petition is dismissed, and instead directed the petitioners to deposit the amount realized on the sale of the secured assets i.e. Rs.92,09,814/- with the registry. The said amount has, accordingly, been deposited. 234. For the determination of the controversy in this writ petition, in the backdrop of the questions of law which we have answered above, it would suffice to note that answers to question nos. (e) and (f) would govern the facts of the case. Undisputedly, the petitioners do not claim to have registered the security interest with CERSAI. The contention of Mr. Narula that the mortgage deed was registered under the Registration Act and hence the same would amount to sufficient compliance for the purposes of the SARFAESI Act has been countered by Ms. Jeejeebhoy, as noted above. We are in agreement with her that the deeming provision under section 20A comes into effect only after integration of certain registration systems with the Central registry and that such integration has to be notified by the Central Government. We have not been shown that steps have been taken in the manner dictated by the statute to enable the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not deserve any relief. 240. Since the subject flats were purchased by the petitioners during the pendency of this writ petition, without permission of the Court, we annul the sale and direct that the sale certificates in favour of the petitioners shall stand cancelled. Further, the amount of Rs.92,09,814/- deposited by the petitioners be returned to them along with interest accrued thereon. Also, it is needless to observe that the rights and liabilities of the parties shall be governed by the law which we have clarified. 241. Subject to the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. WRIT PETITION NO.3553 OF 2021 242. Petitioner, an asset reconstruction company, is an assignee of the Karnataka Bank, which had extended financial facilities to Maxwell Metallic Wires Pvt. Ltd., in the year 2010. An equitable mortgage of land bearing Survey no.441, Hissa No.3, situated at Village Mahim, Taluka Palghar, Dist. Thane along with the plant and machinery thereon (the secured asset), was created in favour of Karnataka Bank under an Instrument dated 16th July 2010. 243. The assignor had initiated measures under Chapter III of the SARFAESI Act. A notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI Act, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax issued demand notice under section 178 read with section 267 of the MLR Code, warrant of attachment and order of attachment, in one stroke. 249. Since the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had initiated steps for enforcement of security interest under section 13 of the SARFAESI Act in the year 2013 and the right to enforce security interest got further fortified with the enforcement of Chapter IV-A, with effect from 24th January 2020, the subsequent action of the respondent no.1 does not supplant the right of priority in payment. We are, thus, inclined to allow the writ petition. 250. The writ petition stands allowed, with the following directions: (a) The order of attachment of the secured assets dated 5th October 2020 stands quashed and set aside. (b) It is declared that the petitioners have a right to enforce the security by sale of secured assets in accordance with law unhindered by the tax claim of the respondent no.1. WRIT PETITION NO.3120 OF 2021 251. Petitioner no.1, an asset reconstruction company, is an assignee of Cosmos Cooperative Bank Limited (hereafter "Cosmos", for short), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eation of charge, in itself, is not enough. It does not appear that before the rights of the petitioner as a secured creditor, who had registered the security interest with CERSAI, were crystalized, with the enforcement of Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI Act, the State tax authorities had not ordered the attachment of the secured asset in the manner known to law and followed it up with a proclamation. In the absence thereof, the priority created by section 26E of the SARFAESI Act operates with full force and vigor. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 257. The writ petition stands allowed. We also direct as follows: (a) Mutation Entry No.1135 recording the encumbrance of sales tax dues in the record of right of the secured asset stands quashed and set aside. (b) It is hereby declared that the petitioner has a right to enforce the security interest by sale of the secured asset in accordance with law unhindered by the tax claim of the respondents 1 to 4. WRIT PETITION NO.6297 OF 2021 258. Petitioner, an asset reconstruction company, is an assignee of Central Bank of India, a leading lender of the consortium of lenders, which had extended credit facilities to Yo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the record of right of the secured asset does not advance the cause of the revenue. In the absence of such steps, and particularly with the enforcement of section 26E of the SARFAESI Act the right of the petitioner to have priority in payment deserves to be enforced in preference to the claim of the revenue. We are, thus, inclined to allow the writ petition. 265. The writ petition stands allowed and we order as follows: (a) Mutation Entry No.1132 recording encumbrance of sales tax dues in the record of right of the secured asset stands quashed and set aside. (b) It is hereby declared that the petitioner has a right to enforce the security interest by sale of the secured asset in accordance with law unhindered by the tax claim of the respondents 1 to 3. WRIT PETITION NO.2248 OF 2021 266. Petitioner no.1 is a Scheduled Bank registered under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. During the period 2007 to 2011, in three tranches, the petitioner had extended credit facilities to M/s. Blue Star Agro and Winery (India) Pvt. Ltd., respondent no.4. The loan was secured by creating a mortgage by deposit of title deeds of the immovable properties including the agricultur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above, none of the measures is of any assistance to the revenue. A mere entry in the record of rights of the secured asset bereft of any order of attachment, followed by a proclamation in the manner known to law, is of no consequence. From the perusal of Mutation Entry Nos.1207 dated 7th January, 2015 and 1455 dated 23rd July, 2019, it becomes evident that the encumbrances were sought to be recorded merely on the basis of the communication addressed by the Sales Tax authorities. 272. As the order of attachment was evidently passed on 28th September, 2020, post section 26E of the SARFAESI Act having been brought into force, the right of the petitioner to have priority in payment of the secured debt, over all other debts, revenue and taxes, would crystalize. Subsequent action of attachment of the secured asset purportedly in exercise of the right under section 37 of the MVAT Act would not dislodge the superior claim of the secured creditor. 273. However, despite noting the above facts, we are unable to grant relief to the petitioner. We find that the 2011 Rules were notified on 31st March 2011. Therefore, the CERSAI registration of the security interest could not have been possible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es tax dues to the tune of Rs.7,99,57,316/- and the department had already initiated process of recovery in the month of August 2017. As a part thereof, it was asserted, the secured asset was attached on 31st January 2018 and even possession thereof was taken on 28th March 2018 by publishing a notice in the daily Pudhari, Kolhapur. It was further contended that the copies evidencing the aforesaid action were already forwarded to the petitioner vide communication dated 16th October, 2018. Yet the petitioner moved the District Magistrate under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, suppressing the aforesaid facts and obtained an order dated 11th December 2019. Another communication was addressed on 18th March 2020 reiterating the aforesaid position. 280. As the department did not cave in to the petitioner's claim of superior right of recovery and firmly stood by its claim, the petitioner has approached this Court to quash and set aside the demand notice and attachment order dated 30th January 2018 and to direct the respondent no.6 to remove encumbrance noted in the record of right of the secured asset. 281. In an additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Petitioner on 22nd November 2021 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that, in the said reply, an endeavour was made to demonstrate that Mrs. Maya Arvind Toley, respondent no.5, was not the director of the respondent no.4 and, therefore, the sales tax authorities were not entitled in law to attach the secured asset, which was the property of the respondent no.5. 286. We find that the said stand of the petitioner is in stark contrast to the substratum of the petitioner's claim that the respondent No.5 had furnished security in the capacity of a director of the respondent no.4. This ambivalent stand of the petitioner further erodes the veracity of its case. It also indicates that instead of meeting the case of the department that it had enforced the 'first charge' over the secured asset in exercise of the right under section 37 of the MVAT Act, the petitioner endeavoured to deflect the issue by questioning the action of the department in proceeding against the property of the director of the dealer. 287. The situation which thus obtains is that before the enforcement of Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI Act, the department had initiated measures to enforce its 'first charge' under section 37 of the MVAT Act, passed attachment order and also publishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e total dues of the Petitioner and the Respondent the issue could be sorted out at that stage by the Petitioner seeking a declaratory relief from this Court by way of a Writ Petition." 294. Petitioner claimed to have auctioned the secured asset and confirmed sale in favour of the successful bidder for a consideration of Rs.4,86,00,000/- and the said amount, according to the petitioner, does not cover even 50% of the outstanding amount. Hence, this writ petition availing the liberty granted by the Division Bench to seek a declaratory relief that the petitioner is entitled to appropriate the entire sale proceeds in preference to the claim of the Respondent. 295. The facts leading to the initiation of measures to enforce the security furnished by Mr. Ganesh B. Patel, the sole proprietor of M/s. K.K. Steel, whom the petitioner had extended the financial facilities are, by and large, not in dispute. A notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was addressed on 8th February 2013. The authorized officer of the petitioner took physical possession of the secured asset on 10th October 2014. When resistance was put forth by the Sales Tax authorities to the auction of the secured asset, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that the respondents had ordered attachment of the secured asset in conformity with the provisions of MLR Code and the MRLR Rules. No endeavour was made by the respondents to show that the warrant of attachment and order of attachment were issued and there was a proclamation of the attachment order. 300. Likewise, the Sales Tax Commissioners did not claim that they registered the claim with the CERSAI to adhere to the mandate contained in section 26B(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Non-registration of the claim and/or order of attachment entails the consequences envisaged by sub-section (2) of section 26C of the SARFAESI Act. Thus, dual disability sets in. First, in the absence of material to show that the first charge under section 37 of MVAT Act was enforced by a valid attachment order before the registration of security interest by the petitioner with the CERSAI, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the right of priority under section 26E of the SARFAESI Act. Secondly, with the registration of the security interest with the CERSAI on 9th July 2020, coupled with the absence of registration of the department's demand and/or order of attachment, the claim of the respondents becomes sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
