Disposed

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. The Sub-Registrar

Madras HC13 Nov 2019WP/31845/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed a writ petition seeking a stay on an attachment order by the Tax Recovery Officer. Instead of adjudicating the priority of claims between the Asset Reconstruction Company and the Income Tax Department, the court directed the respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representations within three weeks after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to dispose of the representations dated 20.06.2019 and 11.07.2019 within three weeks on merits after hearing the petitioner.

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Vs The Sub-Registrar — Income Tax | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 13.11.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

Writ Petition No.31845 of 2019 and WMP No.32088 of 2019

¶6

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Acting in its capacity as Trustee of EARD Trust SC 221 Edelweiss Houwe, Off CST Road, Kalina, Mumbai – 400 098. ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs
1.The Sub-Registrar,
Thiruvaottiyur,
21/8, Market Lane, SBI Colony,
Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 019.
2.Tax Recovery Officer,
Central – 2, Chennai
Income Tax Department,
Room No.332, 3 rd Floor,
New No.46, Mahatma Gandhi Road
Chennai – 600 034.
3.M/s.RKKR Steel Pvt. Ltd.
No.403-A, TH Road,
Thiruvottiyur,
Chennai – 600 019
Also at 2 nd Floor, Prestige Palladium,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶8

4.Mr.Rajiv Rai ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer: PETITION filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the representations issued by the petitioner herein dated 20.06.2019 and 11.7.2019 and consequently forbear the 2^nd respondent from making any claims under its Attachment Order bearing No.TRC:26/CR 2/2015-16 against the petitioner or persons purchasing the Schedule Property under and through proceedings initiated by the Petitioner under SARFAESI Act read with Rules thereunder.

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Srinath Sridevan

¶13

For Respondents: Mr.Tamizharasan, G.A. - R1

¶14

Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan

¶15

Sr. Standing Counsel - R2

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The short prayer in the Writ Petition is for mandamus directing the second respondent i.e.,Tax Recovery Officer to consider and pass orders on the representations filed by the petitioner on 20.6.2019 and 11.07.2019 and consequently forbear the second respondent from making any claim under attachment order bearing No.TRC:26/CR 2/2015-16 against the petitioner or any future purchasers of the schedule mentioned property at Thiruvottiyur Village.

¶18

The petitioner is an Asset Reconstruction Company and has stepped into the shoes of the Indian Bank as per Section 5 (22) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, pursuant to Assignment Agreement dated 30.06.2016, whereunder Indian Bank had assigned the debt of one M/s.RKKR Steels Private Limited (in short 'company'/R3) to it. The question before me relates to a tussle between the right pursued by the petitioner in regard to the schedule property and the right pursued by the Income Tax Officer in regard to the same property in relation to income tax dues of R3 and the fourth respondent.

¶19

I see no reason to go into the merits of the priority of claim for the reason that the prayer of the petitioner is itself only for disposal of its representations filed before the Tax Recovery Officer.

¶20

Mr.Thamizharasan, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the first respondent and Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice for second respondent. The third and fourth respondents are private parties/defaulting assessees and have not been put on notice.

¶21

In fine, there is a direction to the second respondent to dispose representations dated 20.06.2019 and 11.07.2019

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

¶24

within a period of three (3) weeks from today, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶25

This Writ Petition is disposed in the aforesaid terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sl
To
1.The Sub-Registrar,
Thiruvaottiyur,
21/8, Market Lane, SBI Colony,
Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 019.
2.Tax Recovery Officer,
Central – 2, Chennai
Income Tax Department,
Room No.332, 3 rd Floor,
New No.46, Mahatma Gandhi Road
Chennai – 600 034.
+1cc to Mr.Srinath Sridevan, Advocate SR.94075
+1cc to Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate SR.94144
+1cc to the Government Pleader SR.94637
Writ Petition No.31845 of 2019
and WMP No.32088 of 2019
SJ(CO)
CB(10/01/2020)

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. The Sub-Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. The Sub-Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Venkatesh Vs Assistant Commissioner of

Thiru.a.Ramalinga Reddiar Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax

M/s.Sri vinayaga Metals, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Peps Industries (P) Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Maxx Mobilink Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

R.S.M.Electricals, Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax