Legal Reference Library

In Haryana Urban Dev. Authority and Ors. Vs. Orchid Infrastructure Developers P. Ltd., the Respondent filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief as against the Appellants with regard to rejection of bid relating to the commercial tower when the bid submitted by the Respondent was the highest. Plaintiff questioned the rejection of the bid. The question before the court was - (i) Whether there being no concluded contract in absence of acceptance of bid and issuance of allotment letter, suit could be said to be maintainable for declaratory relief and mandatory injunction sought by Plaintiff (ii)  Whether Administrator had rejected bid in illegal or arbitrary manner Held, while allowing the appeal: (i) The Respondent prayed for a declaration that rejection of the bid was illegal. Merely by that, Plaintiff could not have become entitled for consequential mandatory injunction for issuance of formal letter of allotment. Court while exercising judicial review could n...

In Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. Vs. Florita Buildcon Private Limited, the auction purchaser had successfully bid a secured asset being sold mortgaged property on “as is where is and as is what is basis”. The various terms and conditions forming the part of bid document clearly casted the responsibility and liability on the bidder to ensure that the title of the mortgaged property is verified by the bidder and the property is being sold clearly on “as is where is and as is what is basis”. The purchaser (Respondent No. 1) filed application in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai to set aside the sale on the count that the mortgaged property was falling in Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and was a plot reserved for Recreation Ground (RG) and, therefore, there was no saleable interest in the mortgaged property. It was also contended that Respondent No.1 came to know about the same only when Respondent No.1 started erecting shed on the said property. ARCL challenged t...

In Sonoma Management Partners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court found that the amount of sales tax was not disclosed to the final auction buyer till after the sale of the asset has been completed. Further the amount due from the defaulting company cannot be claimed from the auction purchaser can by no stretch of the imagination be termed as a successor of the business of the Defaulter Company. The Hon'ble court said that in State of Karnataka & Anr Vs. Shreyas Papers Pvt. Ltd., (2006) it has been held that  a charge may not be enforced against a transferee if she/he has had no notice of the same, unless by law, the requirement of such notice has been waived. The Hon'ble court also mentioned the newly amended Sections 26D & E of the SARFAESI Act which states :- " 26D. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, from the date of commencement of the provisions of this Chapter, no secure...

The Supreme Court remarked that it was "quite shocking" that a bank auctioned a mortgaged property with a floor price of Rs 42 lakh for Rs 5.5 lakh. Since the sale was full of irregularities, the bank was directed to return the money to the auction purchaser with eight per cent interest from the sale in 1998. In this case, Olinda Femandis versus Goa State Cooperative Bank Ltd, the property belonged to seven members of a family. Three of them signed a mortgage deed for Rs 2 lakh, while others did not consent. The bank, nevertheless, sanctioned the loan. It was not returned, leading to the auction. The court set aside the auction and made arrangement to help one of the owners, who had opposed the mortgage.

Fixation of a reserved price for auction by a public authority based on the circle rate of a property does not imply that it must sell it at that price. Circle rates are not a true measure to determine the actual market value of a property, the Supreme Court stated while dismissing the appeal case, E-City Entertainment vs State of Uttar Pradesh. The court explained that the authority must be satisfied that the price offered truly represented the market value. Otherwise, it can cancel the auction. In this case, the Kanpur Corporation offered for sale a prime plot with a reserve price of Rs 15.47 crore. The firm offered Rs 21.51 crore, which was the highest of the three bids. However, after some time, the corporation cancelled the entire tender process because even the highest bid was far below the market value, which was assessed at Rs 100 crore. While ordering the return of the earnest money to the firm, the judgment said: "The property offered by the corporation is admittedly...

1.  [Gurpreet Singh Ahluwalia vs. District Magistrate Dehradun & Ors.] (Uttarakhand HC, 13.01.2015) Properties of the borrower were taken into possession by the Bank followed by auction notices for sale of the properties in question calling upon the bids from the interested purchasers. Pursuant to completion of bidding process, part deposit was made by the successful bidder out of total consideration amount with the Bank and bank was requested to get the properties auctioned demarcated so that sale deed may be executed in favour of the successful bidder after receiving balance consideration and physical possession thereof could also be handed over. Several requests were made to the concerned authority to demarcate the properties auctioned so that Bank may receive the balance of the consideration from the bidder and to also execute the sale deed in favour of the highest bidder. However still no demarcation was carried out and the Bank instead of pursuing the demarcation proce...

State Of Punjab vs M/S. Bandeep Singh & Ors on 25 August, 2015 Author: …………………………………J. Bench: Vikramajit Sen, Shiva Kirti Singh                                                                               REPORTABLE                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                         CIVIL APPEAL No. 629 OF 2006 STATE OF PUNJAB                                               ...APPELLANT           ...

Anil Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U.P. & Another on 20 August, 2004 Author: Kapadia Bench: Ashok Bhan, S.H. Kapadia            CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5402 of 2004 PETITIONER: Anil Kumar Srivastava RESPONDENT: State of U.P. & Another DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/08/2004 BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & S.H. KAPADIA JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T [Arising out of SLP (C) No.7790 OF 2004] WITH TRANSFERRED CASE No.54 OF 2004. On the above submissions, the central point which arises for determination is : whether the tender price of Rs.31,850/- per sq. mtr. is understated. In the present case, respondent no.2 invited offers for the plot admeasuring 54,320.18 sq. mtrs. for the shopping mall with 2800 ECS in order to decongest sector 18. Wide publicity was given. Several reputed developers bought tender documents. However, at the end of the day, there was only one bidder (respondent no.3) in the field. In the present case, malafides have been alleged,...

After accepting the highest offer in an auction by an official liquidator, the company court cannot refuse to confirm the sale because subsequently another person offered a higher amount. The price of the property might have risen in the meantime, but that is no reason to accept a higher bid, the Supreme Court stated in its judgment, Vedica Procon Ltd vs Balleshwar Greens Ltd. The company judge of the Gujarat High Court ordered winding up of Omex Investors Ltd in 1990 and appointed the liquidator. The land was auctioned in open court in which 11 persons participated in the 12 rounds. Vedica offered the highest at Rs 148 crore. It deposited the earnest money and later sought extension of time to deposit the rest. The time was allowed. Meanwhile Balleshwar Greens, the second highest bidder moved the high court offering Rs 160 crore and seeking the recall of the earlier decision. The high court allowed it, leading to the appeal of Vedica in the Supreme Court. Allowing the appeal, the judg...

   The Bank of Bihar Ltd. v. Dr. Damodar Prasad & Anr., AIR 1969  297 Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Bombay v. The Official Liquidator, High Court, Ernakulam & Anr., AIR 1982 SC 1497 Union Bank of India v. Manku Narayana, AIR 1987 SC 1078 State Bank of India v. Messrs. Indexport Registered & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 1740 State Bank of India v. M/s. Saksaria Sugar Mills Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 868 Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. v. Biswasnath Jhunjhunwala, (2009) 9 SCC 478 United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3413) Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 448; Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., AIR 2011 SC 1589 ( IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6204 OF 2009 Ram Kishun & Ors. ...Appellants Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents J U D G M E N T We have considered the rival submissions made by learne...