Appeal against auction sale of property. Appellant challenged procedural violations and valuation. Court listed case for further deposit of amount to prove bonafide.
None granted yet; appeal adjourned for deposit of further amounts.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Regular Appeal No. 28/2017 Date: 15.12.2023
Smt. Sarla Jauhari Vs. UCO Bank & Anr.
Present: Shri D. N. Awasthi, counsel for the appellant, Shri P. K. Gupta, counsel for the respondent-Bank, Shri Ashok Srivastava, counsel for the respondent-auction Purchaser,
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is violation of Rule 9(1) and 9(3) of the Rules, 2002. It is further argued that the sale notice is also defective as earnest money should be 10% of the reserve price, which is not shown in the present case. It is also argued that there is violation of Rule 8(6) and 8(7) of the said Rule as no notice of sale has been received by the appellant. It is further contended that the property of the appellant was undervalued, on which it has been sold.
Learned counsel for the respondent-bank has drawn attention of this court to the page no. 33 of the appeal, which is a waiver application and has referred to the para 3, wherein it has been stated that the respondent-bank had sold the property of the appellant or throughway price of Rs. 10.00 lacs to the respondent no. 3 and entire dues stood liquidated. It is further argued that the appellant had full knowledge that the entire liability have been liquidated, therefore, the filing of the present appeal is at the belated stage, which is not maintainable.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Auction Purchaser submits that the auction purchaser died in year of 2015 and the appeal was filed in year of 2017 and the appellant had full knowledge about the death of the auction purchaser, but he did not implead the legal heirs as party, therefore, no notice was served upon the legal heirs of the respondent-Auction
Purchaser. However, he is a necessary party and his reply is on record.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that 25% of the amount due has already been deposited at the time when there was no judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 8969 of 2022- M/s Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Private Limited & Another Vs. Prudent ARC Limited & Others decided on 05.01.2023, but the appellant is ready to deposit the entire amount due, if so directed by this court to show his bonafide. Let the appellant deposit 25% more before this court by the next date fixed.
List this case on 16.02.2024 for hearing.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
Anupam
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Civil Appeal No. 8969 of 2022- M/s Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Private Limited & Another Vs. Prudent ARC Limited & OthersExplained¶8
Smt. Sarla Jauhari
UCO Bank & Anr.
R. D. Khare
Anupam
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
