Legal Reference Library

The SUPREME COURT in Chilamkurti Bala Subrahmanyam VS Samanthapudi Vijaya Lakshmi & Anr, while referring to the judgment in Saheb Khan vs. Mohd. Yousufuddin & Ors., held that it is not the material irregularity that alone is sufficient for setting aside of the sale. The applicant has to go further and establish to the satisfaction of the Court that the material irregularity or fraud, as the case may be, has resulted in causing substantial injury to the applicant in conducting the sale. It is only then the sale so conducted could be set aside under Order 21 Rule 90(2) of the Code.

In United Finance Corporation v. M.S.M. Haneefa, instant appeal arises before the Hon'ble Supreme Court out of order passed by High Court of Kerala allowing revision and thereby dismissing application filed by Appellant under Order XXI Rule 95 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (CPC) on ground that, application is barred by limitation and declining direction for delivery of possession of immovable property purchased in Court auction sale to Appellant. Challenging impugned order, it was submitted that, Court auction sale does not become absolute on passing of a mere order of confirmation of sale as enjoined by Order XXI Rule 92(1) of C.P.C. but it becomes absolute only on termination of proceedings initiated to set aside the order confirming the sale. The Hon'ble court said that "In our view, the sale could not have become absolute till the proceedings in the revision in C.R.P.No.2829/2002 was over and the revision was disposed of. The judgment-debtor, as discussed earlier, ...

The facts relating to the market value as on the date of agreement to sale and as on the date of sale deed is not disputed. The only dispute is whether the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement to sale or sale deed to be considered for the purpose of computation of capital gain. The purpose of introducing section 50C of the Act was to counter suppression of sale consideration of sale of immovable properties. Before insertion of section 50C of the Act to the statute, there are lot of litigations as to consideration shown in document conveying title and payment of stamp duty. To overcome the litigations, the provision of section 50C of the Act has been inserted to the statute w.e.f. 1.6.2003 wherein it is made mandatory to adopt value u/s 50C of the Act for the purpose of determination of consideration. A proviso to section 50C of the Act has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017 to resolve the genuine and intended hardship, in the case in which the date of agreem...

SARFAESI Act; Tom Thomas Vs. State Bank of India Overseas Branch, Willington Island [Kerala High Court, 30-11-2016] Contents Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 128. Surety’s liability 140. Rights of surety on payment or performance 141. Surety’s right to benefit of creditor’s securities Bank of Bihar v. Damodar Prasad, AIR 1969 SC 297 Wright v. Simpson, (1802)6 Ves Jun 714 Union Bank of India v. Manku Narayanan, AIR 1987 SC 1978 State of Bank of India v. M/s. Indexport Registered, AIR 1992 SC 1740 Jagannath Ganeshram Agarwala v. Shivnarayan Bhagirath, AIR 1940 Bom. 247 A.P. State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Gar Re-rolling Mills, AIR 1994 SC 2151 Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. v. Biswanath Jhunjhunwala, (2009) 9 SCC 478 United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 110 Ram Kishan v. State of U.P., (2012 11 SCC 511 Central Bank of India v. Vimla, (2015) 7 SCC 337 1. Applicat...

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...

In Pegasus Assets Reconstruction P. Ltd. ..Appellant vs M/s. Haryana Concast Limited & Anr. ...Respondents This matter raised a common issue of law: Whether a Company Court, directly or through an Official Liquidator, can wield any control in respect of sale of a secured asset by a secured creditor in exercise of powers available to such creditor under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity the SARFAESI Act), arises in all these matters which have been heard together and shall be governed by this common judgment. The rival contention and case laws were noted for framing the main question of law in the following words : - Whether the Company Court enjoys jurisdiction to issue supervisory direction to a securitization company/ secured creditor in connection with a company in liquidation or under winding up in the face of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act or securitization company opting to stand outsi...

Rajasthan High Court on Friday directed that no registration of flats in multi-storey buildings will be allowed in the state without issuance of completion certificate by the competent authority. The single bench of the court issued the order on a petition by Chiranjilal Pilania against Dev Developers in Sikar, who constructed a G+5 multi-storey building on the municipal land after getting permission for a G+3 multi-storey building plan on his private land, violating the building plans in connivance with the municipal officials. The court said the illegal constructions have become a scourge in urban and semi-urban centres across the state. The regulatory authorities are fighting what seems to be a losing battle against such constructions. The reason lies inter alia in corruption, inefficiency, sheer volume of work and neighbourhood apathy. Consequently, a belief has taken root in the minds of the builders and general public that laws regulating buildings plans can be violated with ...

1) Valji Khimj i and Company Vs. Official Liquidator of Hindustan 2) Nitro Product (Gujarat) Limi ted and others - (2008) 9 SCC 299 3) United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others - (2010) 8 SCC 110 4) Narandas Karsondas Vs. S.A. Kamtam and another - (1977) 3 SCC 247 5) Ram Kishun and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others - (2012) 11 SCC 511. 6) Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India & others. - (2004) 4 SCC 311 7) Transcore Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2008) 1 SCC 125 8) Eastern Counties etc. Railway Vs. Marriage reported in (1861) 9 HLC 32 9) Bhinka and others Vs. Charan Singh reported in AIR 1959 SC 960 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1927-1929 OF 2014 (@ SLP (C) NO(S).21433-21435 OF 2010) Mathew Varghese ….Appellant VERSUS M. Amritha Kumar & Ors. .…Respondents J U D G M E N T Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. ............. 26. When we analyze...