Disposed

Dr Matuk Nath Choudhary v. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. and 3 Ors.

DRAT17 Mar 2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses an appeal against a scheduled auction of an appellant's flat. The court permitted partial holding of the auction while granting an adjournment for the sheriff's inquiry regarding the deposit of sale consideration claimed by the appellant. A status date was fixed for the reply.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the appellant to take steps within a week regarding notices; case listed on 10.05.2023 for reply; auction to go on but not confirmed.

Dr Matuk Nath Choudhary versus Housing and Urban Development… — Property and Title | DRAT (2023)

¶1

Appeal Dy. No. 955/2022 Date: 17.03.2023

¶2

Dr. Matuk Nath Choudhary Vs. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd.

¶3

Present: Shri Maneesh Mehrotra, counsel for the appellant, Shri Alok Rai, counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3- HUDCO,

¶4

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶5

Issue notices to the respondent no. 4 by two modes i.e. Registered Post with A.D. and Speed Post. Steps to be taken by the appellant within a week. Affidavit of service along with tracking report be filed by the next date.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant had purchased the flat in question from the builder, for which a registered agreement to sell was entered between the parties and the entire sale consideration has been paid by the appellant to the builder and the possession has been handed over to the appellant, which was subsequently taken over by the respondent-F.I.

¶7

It is contended that the appellant had filed a civil writ petition no. 19238 of 2013 before the Hon’ble High Court, which was finally disposed off vide order dated 04.08.2014 with a direction that the appellant has right to file the S.A. before the Tribunal below, which was filed by challenging the auction sale issued by the respondent-F.I., even flat of the appellant for which the entire sale consideration was deposited. It is contended that in compliance of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, the appellant has further deposited Rs. 11.00 lacs and odd i.e. 40% of the reserve price with the respondent-F.I., which has been accepted by them. It is contended that the S.A. has been decided vide judgment and

¶8

order dated 03.07.2013, which was challenged by the appellant by filing the appeal Sr. No. 221/2014 before this Appellate Tribunal, which was decided on 16.10.2019 with the direction to the Tribunal below to consider and decide the matter afresh as per direction, which is contained in the said order. It is argued that the S.A. was remanded back and again it has been decided on the ground of maintainability without touching the issues on which the matter was remanded back and today i.e. 17.03.2023 is date fixed for the auction.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondents-F.I. states that some time may be granted to him to confirm, whether the 40% amount of the reserve price has been deposited by the appellant or not. Let the respondent-F.I. file response by the next date.

¶10

List this case on 10.05.2023 for reply. The sale, which is scheduled to be held today i.e. 17.03.2023, shall go-on, but be not confirmed till the next date.

¶11

Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson

¶12

Anupam

Dr Matuk Nath Choudhary v. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Matuk Nath Choudhary v. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Parveen Kumar versus Punjab National Bank

Loutoo Ram versus Union Bank of India and Anr.

Gitesh Kumar versus Allahabad Bank and 6 Ors.

Canara Bank versus Ms Bhagat Motors India Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Shree Bhagwan Agarwal and Others versus Allahabad Bank and Others

M/ S Sudarshan Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. versus Indian Overseas Bank