CWP No.9873 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.9873 of 2008 Date of decision: 03.11.2008 M/s Bharat Industrial Corporation -----Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ritu Bahri, DAG,Haryana for the State. Mr. Amit Rishi, Advocate for Mr. GS Anand, Advocate for respondent No.4. Adarsh Kumar Goel, J 1. This petition seeks quashing of attachment of petitioner’s property vide letter dated 29.11.2004, Annexure P.2. 2. Case of the petitioner is that respondent No.5 was original owner of the property in question which was sold to the 1 CWP No.9873 of 2008 petitioner for recovering outstanding dues of the Oriental Bank of Commerce, respondent No.4. Respondent No.5 was also liable to pay certain tax dues to the State of Haryana and to recover the said dues, certificate of recovery had been issued, in execution of which the property of the petitioner has been attached. The petitioner had purchased the said property on 16.1.2006 and sale certificate Anenxure P.5 was issued in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that the claim of the State for recovery of tax dues could have preference only against the original or unsecured creditors and not against the Bank which was a secured creditor for the loan advanced against mortgage of the property. The bank having realized the property by sale, the petitioner purchased the same without any encumbrance and the petitioner was not liable to pay the dues of the State. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dena Bank v. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh and Co. and others, (2000) 5 SCC 694, para 10 : (2001) 247 ITR 165 and judgments of this Court in Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Limited v. Union of India and others, CWP No.3875 of 2005, decided on 30.1.2007 and M/s TC Spinners Pvt. Limited v. The Union of India and others, CWP No.1385 of 2008, decided on 11.9.2008. In M/s T.C.Spinners Pvt. Limited (supra), in similar 2 CWP No.9873 of 2008 circumstances, it was held that Excise department could not enforce payment of dues against the purchaser of the property in sale by the Bank. 3. Learned counsel for the State is unable to distinguish the applicability of above judgments or to show any contrary law. 4. Accordingly, we allow this petition and quash the impugned letter of attachment dated 29.11.2004, Annexure P.2 and further consequential proceedings. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge November 3, 2008 (L.N.Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3 CWP No.9873 of 2008 4