TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to realise its dues by exercising its first charge as per the orders dated 10 January 2020 passed by the Division Bench. Secondly, the petitioners in alleging breach have totally overlooked that petitioner No. 3 taking the benefit of the order dated 10 January 2020 had already proceeded to issue an auction proclamation on 11 February 2021 under which petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had submitted their bids which came to be considered by petitioner No. 3. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were declared to be successful bidders by issuance of a communication by petitioner No. 3 titled as Successful Bid Confirmation Letter . Thereafter, on 5 March 2020 petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had made part payment/consideration in purchasing the auctioned property, from petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.C.:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners on this contempt petition. The prayer of the petitioners is that contempt action be initiated against the respondents for having committed a breach of the order dated 10th January 2020 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The said order reads thus:- 1] The Petitioner is the secured creditor and has received a letter dated 14.03.2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax informing that on account of sales tax dues there is a lien on the property in favour of the State Government. 2] This Bench has resolved the issue as per the Judgment dated 13th December 2019 passed in Writ Petition 1039 of 2017 pari passu. It was held that the dues of a secured debto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alam Investment and Finance Company in obtaining financial borrowings. Thus, the petitioner No. 3 Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company was a secured creditor having first charge on the mortgaged immovable property of the dealer and not of the Sales Tax Department. 4. We find from the letter/notice dated 16th March 2021 as addressed by the Sales Tax Department that merely a request was made by the Sales Tax Department to the Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company to pay money to Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra State, Mumbai which may become due, by disposal of assets/property of the dealer. A copy of the said letter/notice was also forwarded to the petitioner nos. 1 and 2. The second such letter was also in the nature of G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount from you as an arrears of Land revenue under sub-section (6) of Section 33 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. 5. In so far as the petitioners case that a letter dated 16 March 2021 issued by the respondent to petitioner No. 3 would amount to breach of the order dated 10 January 2020 (supra) passed by the Division Bench, is totally untenable. This for the reason that such a communication did not in any manner obstruct the sale of the property by the petitioners to realise its dues by exercising its first charge as per the orders dated 10 January 2020 passed by the Division Bench. Secondly, the petitioners in alleging breach have totally overlooked that petitioner No. 3 taking the benefit of the order dated 10 Janua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... March 2021 and 9 April 2021 respectively by the respondents alleged to be issued in breach of the orders, would even remotely amount to any intentional disobedience of the orders passed by this Court. 8. This apart, the petitioners in pursuing the present contempt petition are completely oblivious to the consideration of all these materials in the judgment rendered by this Court on Writ Petition No. 4365 of 2023 dated 12 July 2023 filed by the petitioners, on all issues in regard to implications of the order dated 10 January 2020 being considered by this Court. The Court considering the position in law has held that apart from recognizing the first charge of petitioner No. 3, the charge of the Sales Tax Department on the mortgage pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|