Najmudeen Nadheem Ahamed Vs Gopaldas Dwarakadas Family Trust Estate

would contend that the appellant submitted his bid to the Registrar General, High Court. However, he has not received any intimation regarding the public

¶29

auction conducted by the Court. The learned Single Judge, while directing for

¶30

publication, indicated that the hearing date is to be mentioned in the paper

¶31

publication. However, the publication does not contain the date of hearing.

¶32

Therefore, the appellant could not able to participate in the auction conducted

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

CMP No. 12846 of 2025

¶35

by the Court. Since he was not aware of the auction/hearing date, nor the

¶36

conduct of auction, there is a delay in filing the appeal, and more so, his bid submitted before the Registrar General was also not taken into consideration.

¶37

The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd

¶38

respondent would oppose by stating that the public auction sale was conducted by the Court in the “Court room” and the bids submitted before the Registrar General were called for, and the auction was conducted in a transparent manner. Three participants were present before the Court. They are 1. Mr.Abul Abbas, 2. Mr.Mohammed Ismail and 3.Mr.K.Rajamanickam. It is brought to the notice of this Court that Mr.Mohammd Ismail is the father of the Mr.Abul Abbas. The cause title also reveals the same. Therefore, only two persons actively participated in the auction conducted by the Court. Further, it is concluded that the 2nd respondent Mr.Abul Abbas is the highest bidder, and accordingly, the sale was confirmed. The learned Single Judge passed orders on 21.01.2025 recording the auction conducted, and terms to settle the sale amount also has been fixed. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.12.55 Crores has been deposited by the 2nd respondent in the Indian Bank, High Court Branch. That

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

CMP No. 12846 of 2025

¶41

apart, there is a long delay in filing the present appeal. He would further

¶42

submit that the appellant is not an aggrieved person and he remained silent for more than three months. Thus, the present petition is vexatious. The appellant is intending to frustrate the entire auction sale proceedings, and therefore, the conduct of the appellant is to be taken into consideration for the

¶43

purpose of rejecting the present petition.

¶44

The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent Trust

¶45

would contend that the public auction through Court was conducted in a transparent manner. The 2nd respondent is the highest bidder and deposited

¶46

the amount. Pursuant to the order of confirmation of sale, a sale deed was also executed. Therefore, the Trust may be permitted to withdraw the amount

¶47

by dismissing the present petition seeking the leave of this Court.

¶48

This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the

¶49

parties to the lis on hand.

¶50

The fact remains that the 1st respondent Trust is the absolute owner

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

CMP No. 12846 of 2025

¶53

of the property. A decision was taken by the Trust to sell the property. An application was filed seeking permission of the Court as per the scheme decree in CS.No.721 of 1923 dated 17.02.1925. Permission was granted by

¶54

the Court, and the said permission is not in dispute between the parties.

¶55