Deepak Gupta JUDGMENT
L. Nageswara Rao, J.
1. The Appellant filed the Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay seeking a restraint order against the Tax Recovery Officer, Range 1, Kalyan-Respondent No. 4 for enforcing the attachment made under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for recovery of the dues. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the High court, aggrieved by which the Appeal has been filed.
2. Biowin Pharma India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'BPIL')-Respondent No. 5 herein obtained a loan from the Union Bank of India. Property situated in Plot No. D-11 admeasuring 1000 sq. mtrs. situated at Phase-III, Dombivli Industrial Area, MIDC, Kalyan along with plant machinery and building was mortgaged as security to Union Bank of India-Respondent No. 5 herein. Respondent No.-5 filed OA No. 1836 of 2000 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal III, Mumbai (hereinafter referred as 'the DRT') for recovery of the loan advanced to BPIL. The DRT allowed the OA filed by Respondent No. 5 and directed BPIL to pay a sum of Rs. 4,76,14,943.20/- along with interest at the rate of 17.34% per annum from the date of the application till the date of payment and/or realisation. A recovery certificate in terms of the order passed by the DRT was issued and recovery proceedings were initiated against BPIL. The Recovery Officer, DRT III (Respondent No. 2) attached the property on 29.11.2002. Respondent No. 2 issued a proclamation of sale of the said property on 19.08.2004. A public auction was held on 28.09.2004. The DRT was informed that there were no bidders except the Appellant. The offer made by the Appellant to purchase the property for an amount of Rs. 23,00,000/- was accepted by Respondent No. 2. On 14.01.2005, a certificate of sale was issued by Respondent No. 2 in favour of the Appellant. The possession of the disputed property was handed over to the Appellant on 25.01.2005 by Respondent No. 2 and a certificate of sale was registered on 10.01.2006.
3. The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the MIDC') informed Respondent No. 2 that it received a letter dated 23.03.2006 from the Tax Recovery Officer, Range 1, Kalyan, Respondent No. 4 herein stating that the property in dispute was attached by Respondent No. 4 on 17.06.2003. The Appellant requested the Regional Officer, MIDC by a letter dated 10.04.2006 to transfer the property in dispute in its favour in light of the Sale Certificate issued by DRT on 25.01.2005. As the MIDC failed to transfer the plot in the name of the Appellant, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court seeking a direction for issuance of 'No Objection' in respect of the plot and to restrain Respondent No. 4 from enforcing the attachment of the said plot, which was performed on 11.02.2003.
4. The question posed before the High Court is whether the Appellant who bona fide purchased the property in auction sale as per the order of the DRT is entitled to have the property transferred in its name in spite of the attachment of the said property by the Income Tax Department. Relying upon Rule 16 of Schedule II to the Act, the High Court came to the conclusion that there can be no transfer of a property which is the subject matter of a notice. The High Court was also of the view that after an order of attachment is made Under Rule 16(2), no........