Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S OJAS IMPEX PVT. LTD. versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Ojas Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 11482 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 3536 (1 March 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon. Anjani Kumar, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This petition has been filed for quashing the recovery proceedings including the sale proclamation issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sikandarabad pursuant to the order dated 22nd September, 2004 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps), Bulandshahar.

The petitioner claims to be the auction purchaser of the assets of industrial unit of M/s. Tri Ambikey Foods (P) Ltd. situate at Industrial Area, Sikandarabad pursuant to the public auction of the Unit by the U.P. Financial Corporation as it could not repay the loan.

The records reveal that that the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps), Bulandshahar has passed an order on 22.9.2004 regarding deficiency of stamps and pursuant to the aforesaid order, sale proclamation has been issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for recovery of stamp deficiency of Rs.5,80,000/-.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had no knowledge whatsoever of the aforesaid order dated 22nd September, 2004 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) and, therefore, the Unit of the petitioner cannot be auctioned as it was not responsible for the deficiency of stamps.

Prima facie, a perusal of the agreement to sell entered into between the petitioner and the U.P. Financial Corporation, a copy of which has annexed as Annexure '3' to the petition, shows that all liabilities (present and future) in respect of the said property shall be payable by the vendee.

However, without going into this controversy, we are of the opinion that the petition raises disputed questions of fact which cannot be determined while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a Civil Suit, if so advised.

Date: 1.3.2007

GS-11482-07


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.