STATE OF HARYANA Vs. ANDHRA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that State of Haryana was never a party in the suit. The decree was not passed against the State of Haryana and in these circumstances, the impugned order dated 2.5.2000 is liable to be set aside being without jurisdiction.

(3.) The submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable. In order to understand the controversy between the parties it is necessary that some facts can be noticed in the following manner. The suit was instituted by the Andhra Bank against the M/s Enclave Electronics. During the pendency of the proceedings, respondent No. 2 purchased the property which was auctioned through the Court auctioneer and also deposited a sum of Rs. 47,520/ - towards the sale tax under protest on the ground that the auction which was conducted by the Court auctioneer was not a sale within the meaning of Section 2 of Haryana General Sales Tax Act . The objections of the respondent No. 2 were dismissed by the trial Court. Respondent No. 2 came in the HIgh Court in Civil Revision No. 3056 of 1989 titled High Channel Video v. M/s Enclave Electronics and the Assistant Collector Sales Tax was made respondent No. 2. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 15.1.1991 was pleased to allow the revision and gave the directions that respondent No. 2 is entitled for the refund of the amount of Rs. 47,520/-. This order is not being complied with by the State of by the office of Assistant Collector, Sales Tax, Haryana. For the execution of the said order an execution petition was filed by respondent No. 2 before the trial Court in which the present petitioner filed the objections which were dismissed by the impugned order dated 2.5.2000. Against this order the present revision has been filed by the State of Haryana.