Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: A Bench of V.K.Tahilramani, CJ and M. Duraiswamy, J. dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking to quash the subject Sale Certificate issued by the Authorised Officer of IDBI Bank.

The petition committed default in repaying the loan amount to IDBI Bank. Consequently, his property was auctioned and a Sale Certificate was issued in favour of the purchaser. The petitioner, represented by his counsel R. Amardeep, challenged the Sale Certificate contending that an insolvency petition on the file of Principal Sub Court. Salem filed by one Raji (Respondent 1) was pending and therefore the said certificate had to be set aside.

The High Court relied on Supreme Court decisions in State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C.,(2018) 3 SCC 85Agarwal Tracom (P) Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank, (2018) 1 SCC 626 and ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Umajanta Mohapatra, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2349 to hold that the present writ petition was not maintainable. It was clear from the cases relied on that the aggrieved parties cannot challenge the proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) directly by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the appeal remedy available to them. Accordingly, the Court held, “Since the petitioner has not challenged the Sale Certificate before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the writ petition cannot be entertained.”The writ petition was thus dismissed. [Rajagopal v. Raji, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 733, dated 11-03-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. while hearing a civil writ petition ruled that a daughter is an ostensible agent of her mother and as such application filed by daughter on behalf of her mother is maintainable.

Petitioners, a mother-daughter duo, were partners in the business of husband/father which was an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. Respondent initiated proceedings to recover arrears of tax and as a part of those proceedings it attached the husband’s share in his ancestral property. Petitioner wife who had strained marital relationship with her husband filed an execution petition for return of her property and movables from him, which was allowed by the Family Court. On obtaining sale certificate for her property, she noted that the said property had already been attached by the respondent tax authority. So she filed an application before tax authorities through her daughter to take advantage of the amnesty scheme floated by Department for the defaulting dealers but her request was rejected. Assailing the said order of rejection, petitioner filed the instant petition.

Petitioner submitted that the amnesty scheme allowed any aggrieved person to apply under it and the petitioners were aggrieved persons as they had an interest in the assessee’s estate. The husband had acted vindictively and deliberately not taken benefit of the amnesty scheme as he did not want his wife and daughter to receive the property.

Respondents submitted that it was the wife had filed matrimonial proceedings and secured a sale certificate. Therefore, her daughter could not be included within the term ‘aggrieved person’ and as such application filed by daughter before tax authorities was not maintainable.

The Court observed that petitioner duo had a common cause: driven out, both had to fend for themselves. The daughter was a dependent – the mother had fought not only to secure her interest but also to secure her daughter’s interest. Therefore, the daughter was ostensible agent of her mother, who has already secured a sale certificate. Separately, as a dependent, she also had a stake in her father’s estate. In view of the above, the petition was allowed with a direction to the tax authority to consider daughter’s application afresh. [Naseera A.P. v. State of Tax Officer,2018 SCC OnLine Ker 4924, decided on 07-11-2018]