SAMBHAJI MAHARAJ SPINNING MILL PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, COOPERATION & TEXTILE DEPARTMENT, MAHARASHTRA STATE, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The gravamen of the dispute is, "whether the auction purchaser is liable to pay the electricity dues of the previous owner ?".

(2.) Mr. Dhorde, the learned senior advocate for petitioners submits that, the respondent No. 2 Sut Girni was under liquidation. The liquidator placed the property of the respondent No. 2 for auction. Pursuant to the tender notice dated 06.02000, the petitioners were the highest bidders. The bid was confirmed in favour of the petitioners for Rs. 8,11,00,000/-. On 18.09.2000 agreement to sale was executed and subsequently sale deeds were executed in favour of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 purchased the entire movable and immovable properties of the respondent No.

(3.) The learned senior advocate further submits that, upon purchase of the property, the petitioner No. 1 made an application to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for supply of electricity connection. The respondent No. 4 intimated that certain dues are payable and electricity connection can only be given after the dues are paid. The learned senior advocate submits that, Clause 8 of the agreement for sale is explicit. The electricity bill and dues were to be borne by the vendor viz the respondent No. 2. The covenant No. 4 in the sale deed also clearly provides that vendor would be liable to pay the Government and non government dues. The liquidator of the respondent No. 2 under letter dated 07.11.2000 also communicated with the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that, it is the duty of the respondent No. 2 to pay the electricity dues. The District Deputy Registrar under its letter dated 07.04.2004 also intimated that the petitioner No. 1 is not liable to pay the dues. The learned senior advocate further submits that, there are no rules of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 stating that dues of previous owner would be charge over the property. The learned senior advocate relies on the following judgments of the Apex Court and this Court.