LAWS(SC)-2000-9-189

ALLAHABAD BANK Vs. CANARA BANK

Decided On September 08, 2000
ALLAHABAD BANK Appellant
V/S
CANARA BANK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Allahabad Bank, in execution of a decree passed against M.S. Shoes brought a shed, consisting of certain land and a building and a superstructure thereon, to sale. The property was purchased by the auction-purchaser, now represented before us by Shri R.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel. The question relating to delivery of possession of the land and building and superstructure, is now before us, inasmuch as certain objections have arisen in respect of removal of some goods and machinery belonging to M.S. Shoes, which are located in the premises sold.

(2.) So far as these goods and machinery are concerned, these belong to M.S. Shoes, but the same are hypothecated to Canara Bank. The auction- purchaser of the land and structure is, therefore, requiring Canara Bank to remove these machinery and goods, so that he can have vacant possession of the property.

(3.) It appears that the property sold to the auction-purchaser consists of a building and a superstructure on the land, and according to M.S. Shoes, a part of the above construction is on its land while a part was constructed on the encroached property. At the same time, there have been huge municipal taxes remaining unpaid by M.S. Shoes to the Municipal Corporation with regard to the land and the superstructure. M.S. Shoes first wanted to get rid of its liability towards the Municipal Corporation in respect of the taxes and brought to the Corporation's notice that their entire taxes in relation to the land and superstructure should be adjusted or recovered from the auction- purchaser. The auction-purchaser has cleared these dues paying lakhs of rupees to the Municipal Corporation. After the said letter of M.S. Shoes, in our view, it was not at all open to the said Company, M.S. Shoes to preclude the auction-purchaser from taking possession of the property sold with superstructure in respect of which the auction-purchaser was thus compelled to pay municipal taxes. M.S. Shoes cannot get the benefit of the municipal taxes paid by the auction-purchaser in respect of the property sold and at the same time come in the way of the auction-purchaser taking delivery of any part of the land or the superstructure in respect of which they had to pay these taxes.