Case Law Details
Indian Overseas Bank Vs Assistant Commissioner (Madras High Court)
A recent judgment by the Madras High Court has tackled a critical issue – the priority of charge in debt realization. The case revolves around whether secured creditors take precedence over tax dues. In this article, we will explore the details of this case and its significance for debt recovery and legal precedence.
The primary issue at hand is determining which party holds priority when it comes to recovering debts – secured creditors or tax authorities. The secured creditors in question base their claim on the provisions of Section 26E of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, commonly referred to as the “SARFAESI Act, 2002.”
On the contrary, the learned Additional Advocate General argues that “crown debt” holds the priority charge. To support this argument, they refer to a judgment from the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, specifically the case of Medineutrina Pvt. Ltd. vs. District Industries Centre and Ors.
To address this fundamental legal question, the Full Bench of the Madras High Court framed specific issues for consideration. These issues encompass the priority charge of financial institutions acting as secured creditors compared to government departments responsible for tax collection. They also delve into the status and rights of a third-party purchaser of the mortgaged property.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
