This second appeal challenged a lower court order setting aside an auction sale due to lack of newspaper publication. The court held that since there was a concurrent finding of facts, no interference was warranted.
Second Appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law was found.
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.
RSA No.150 of 2013
07. 12.04.2018 Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiffs filed a suit against the appellants to declare the sale of the suit property as illegal, void and for permanent injunction and the trial Court after hearing both the parties, set aside the sale made by the present appellants and that for fresh sale through the highest bidder by putting the sale in public auction after inviting offer through wide paper publication. The said order has been confirmed in the first appeal filed by the present appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the concurrent finding of the learned courts below are against the spirit of the law as envisaged under the Orissa State Financial Corporation Act (in short “the Act”). According to him, the provision under Section 31 of the said Act is not mandatory but it is directory one as the word “may” is appearing in that Section. He emphasized the Section 29 of the said Act, whereunder the present appellants have got absolute right to sell the property. He further submits that the appellants have also taken care of for wide publication through the newspaper while putting the property under sale. Hence, filed the Second Appeal.
Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. It is found that there is concurrent finding about the findings of the facts that the auction was not called by resorting to the wide publication of the newspaper. When there is concurrent finding of facts and the same is not found perverse, this Court does not want to interfere with it. Apart from this, Section 29 of the Act may be a power given to the O.S.F.C. but the normal procedure for putting the property to auction sale must be observed. There is no bar for the O.S.F.C. to resort to
2
the Section 31 of the Act where the judicial intervention is also available. After going through the judgment, this Court does not find any substantial question of law to interfere in this appeal. Hence, the Second Appeal stands dismissed.
…………………………
Dr.D.P.Choudhury, J.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court can interfere when there is a concurrent finding of fact that newspaper publication was not used for auction.
Whether Section 31 of the Orissa State Financial Corporation Act mandates strict wide publication for auction sales.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Appellants
Plaintiffs
Dr.D.P.Choudhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
