Allowed

M/S. Kadur Engineering Pvt. Ltd., v. M/S. Mint Towers Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2021WP/17934/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court granted a writ of certiorari quashing an impugned order rejecting an application to set aside an auction sale. The court directed a fresh public auction with specific procedural stipulations, allowing the highest bidder to participate with a deposit refund and additional interest while forfeiting the initial deposit.

What did the court decide?

Writ of certiorari issued quashing the impugned order; directive for fresh auction sale with specific calendar of events and deposit refund mechanism.

M/S. Kadur Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S. Mint… — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.17934 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . M/S. KADUR ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., (A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.27, 4^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, JAYAMAHAL, BENGALURU - 560 046.

¶9

REP. BY MR. PRAKASH B. NARAYAN, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS., PETITIONER NO.2 TO 4

¶10

2 . SMT. NIRMALA PRAKASH NARAYANA, W/O. LATE PRAKASH B. NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶11

3 . SMT. VYDHEHI P. KADUR, D/O. LATE PRAKASH B. NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶12

4 . MR. KARNA P. KADUR, S/O. PRAKASH B. NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶13

PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.27, 4^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, JAYAMAHAL, BENGALURU - 560 046.

¶14

(BY SRI. L.GOVINDARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR P2-P4)

…PETITIONERS

AND:

1 . M/S. MINT TOWERS PVT. LTD., (A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1, 15^TH CROSS STREET, SHASTRY NAGAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI - 600 020,

¶19

ALSO AT: NO.69, RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE - 641 018. 2 . VAITHI HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SRI. JOSHUVA.S, S/O SUNDARDAR, NO.5/7B, INDIRANAGAR, VADUVAILLI, VADAVALLI, COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU – 641 041.

¶20

ALSO AT: NO.M-203, "THE RETREAT MINT HOMES", SENTHIL NAGAR, SOWRIPALYAYAM ROAD, COIMBATORE - TN 641 028.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. C.R.GOPALASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R (CP.NO.5406/2019))

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE ADDL. COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSORE IN EXECUTION NO.66/2013; SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.03.2019 PASSED BY THE JUDGE ADDL. COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND SCJ MYSORE IN EXECUTION NO.66/2013 ON (1)I.A.NO.24 & 25 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 90 & U/S 151 SEEKING FOR SETTING ASIDE THE COURT SALE CONDUCTED ON 01.09.2018 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petitioners being the judgment debtors are invoking the

¶28

writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 29.03.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby their application in I.A.No.24 & 25 filed under Order 21 Rule 90 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908 for setting aside the subject Auction Sale of the properties in question have been rejected by the learned Additional Small Causes Judge, Mysuru and consequently the Auction Sale has been retained.

¶29

After service of notice, the respondent decree holder & respondent auction purchaser having entered appearance through their panel counsel, resist the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the grounds on which it has been structured.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant some reprieve as under & for the following reasons: (a) first respondent’s specific performance suit in O.S.No.767/2006 having been disposed off on the basis of compromise on 31.10.2012, the subject execution

¶31

¶32

proceedings in Ex.No.66/2013 have been instituted; therein the auction sale of the subject properties took place pursuant to orders of the learned Judge of the Court below and the second respondent being the highest bidder has bought the property in question and made the initial deposit of part of sale price.

¶33

(b) A careful perusal of the proceedings of the Court

¶34

below show that the subject property arguably being of huge value, possibly, its disposal would have fetched more money than what is quoted by the auction purchaser as the highest bid amount; justice of the case requires that the subject property be put to a fresh public auction, since the petitioners have shown the bonafide by depositing two crore rupees in the Registry and the same is released to the first respondent already.

¶35

(c) By the fresh auction sale of the subject property, no prejudice would be caused to the second respondent-highest bidder since the amount deposited by him being part of the auction price is liable to be refunded and that he would be

¶36

¶37

permitted to participate in the fresh auction process in the contemplation along with others.

¶38

(d) The vehement contention of learned advocates for

¶39

the decree holder and the auction purchaser that the execution proceedings are being dragged on with one or the other pretext and therefore, there has to be a terminal point to this lis so that the victorious party in the legal battle reaps the fruits of litigaton, has got force; be that as it may.

¶40

This court is of a considered opinion that the re-auction

¶41

of the subject property would cause justice to both the sides by allaying the apparent grievance of the petitioners that the suit properties are sold for a song, with connivance of respondents.

¶42

In the above circumstances, this Writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order; the Court below shall re-auction the subject property with the following calendar of events:

¶43

(i) A fresh proclamation shall be ordered within two

¶44

weeks, of the intended Auction Sale and the same shall be published at least in two Daily News Papers

¶45

¶46

one in Kannada & another in English, that are in circulation in the concerned area;

¶47

(ii) It is open to the Judgment Debtors to seek proclamation of sale through more than the aforesaid two news papers and that for all publication of proclamation cost will be deposited in the court below within two weeks;

¶48

(iii) The publication in the news papers shall be done within two weeks following the fresh order of proclamation that the entire cost thereof shall be borne & deposited by the JDrs in the Court below forthwith and in any circumstance within two weeks following the order for fresh proclamation;

¶49

(iv) The contemplated auction sale shall be held on or before 31.03.2021, after following the rules of fairness and transparency;

¶50

(v) It is open to the second respondent to participate in the fresh auction sale in contemplation;

¶51

(vi) The amount deposited by the second respondentAuction Purchaser shall be re-funded to him forthwith and that he will be entitled to additional

¶52

¶53

6% of amount in deposit which shall be defrayed from the proceed of the fresh auction sale in contemplation; and,

¶54

(vii) Whatever the amount the first respondent has received from the sides of the judgment debtors in these proceedings shall be given due discount.

¶55

Discretion is left with the court below to make minor alterations in the stipulations above if justice of the case warrants and reasons therefor shall be recorded.

¶56

Now, no costs.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

M/S. Kadur Engineering Pvt. Ltd., v. M/S. Mint Towers Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Kadur Engineering Pvt. Ltd., v. M/S. Mint Towers Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Papanna Vs Sri Mahalingappa

Sri. M. Anwar @ Anwar Ji Vs Sree Hulliamma Praja Seva Samithi (R)

Smt Chikka Iragamma Vs Sri v M Muniyappa

Sri Nanjappa Vs Sri Thooru Madappa

Sri Rajappa Vs Sri. Thimmarayappa

Sri. N. Ganesh Vs Smt. Girijamma