DRT  Legal  Solutions

(Debts Recovery Tribunal Legal Solutions) is an India based

Law Firm specializing in DRT, Securitisation, Sarfaesi, IBC, NCLT, Borrowers and Guarantors Solutions in Debts Recovery Tribunals,

Pioneers in Counter-claims and Damage Suits based on Law of Torts and Law of Damages 

Phones (India) - Mobile - +91-9691103689, Off. & Res. +91-731-4049358

E-mail :- ramkishandrt@gmail.com  Web Site :- www.drtsolutions.com

 SC on Property Valuation, Sale, Auction, & Disposal

HomeContentsProducts & ServicesFrequently Asked QuestionsUseful Article-BorrowersUseful Article-GuarantorsRBI GuidelinesNotes-Law of TortsNotes-DamagesMiniArticles-Letters to EditorUseful Interactions with Clients & VisitorsSecuritisation Act-CommentsAbout Us-DRT SolutionsUseful Tips for DRT Advocates|| 138 NI Act Cheque Dishonour Cognizance Acquittal | NCLT, National Company Law Tribunal, BIFR, SICA  |  Video Interview - BS Malik, Sr. Supreme Court AdvocateLegal Forum of IndiaSuccess & Results of Our GuidanceDRT Orders in favour of Borrowers & GuarantorsNPA, Debt due, Rehabilitation of Sick SME IndustriesOur Replies to Queries  on Current DRT Matters, Court Decisions etc.Measure of damages & Calculations under Torts & ContractsVideo Interview - GC Garg, Ex-Senior Bank OfficialSolar Healing, Yoga, Projector, Rebirth etc.Swami Ramdev, Yoga Guru, Cure for All Diseases, Medical Science RevolutionCourt Technologies IT Presentation Video ArgumentsArchiveDRT Solutions Weekly Mail for Borrowers & Guarantors   All India DRT Conference 2011 at IndoreArticle by Ram Kishan on Management & Technology in Indian JudiciarySARFAESI Securitisation Securitization Actar SA NPADRT Judgments Favourable / Useful to Borrowers  DRT Solutions - Site Map for Borrowers & GuarantorsTransform India with Modi-DRT Solutions SuggestionsLaughter Yoga by Ram Kishan, IndoreDr Kataria Indore Visit - Plan, Progress & Record  Keto Diet Vegan I.F.- Personal Experience Age 79 Yrs

Weekly Mails - 1-10  11-20  21-30  31-40  41-50  51-60  61-70  71-80 81-90 91-100 101-110 111-120 121-130 131-140 141-150 151-160 161-170 171-180 181-190 191-200 201-210 211-220 221-230 231-240 241-250 251-260  261-270  271-280 281-290 291-300 301-310 311-320 321-330 331-340 341-350 351-360 361-370 371-380 381-390 391-400 401-410 411-Latest

 

Expert in:- DRT, Counterclaim, securitization, debt recovery tribunal, NCLT  matters

 

 

 

 

Ram Kishun & Others vs State of UP & Others decided on 24.05.12 by Supreme Court of India.

Comments by DRT Legal Solutions 

This is an important judgment by the Supreme court laying down the principles and the law for valuation, sale, auction and disposal of property in accordance with law. The full text of the judgment is given below. Important portions have been shown in Red. The following extracts of the judgment are important:-

“8 Undoubtedly, public money should be recovered and recovery should be made expeditiously. But it does not mean that the Financial Institutions which are concerned only with the recovery of their loans, may be permitted to behave like property dealers and be permitted further to dispose off  the secured assets in any unreasonable or arbitrary manner in flagrant violation of statutory provisions.   

9. A right to hold property is a constitutional right as well as a human right. A person cannot be deprived of his property except in accordance with the provisions of statute. (Vide: Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram, (2007) 10 S.C.C. 448; and Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 1589).

Thus, the condition precedent for taking away someone's property or disposing off the secured assets, is that the authority must ensure compliance of the statutory provisions.”

“17. In view of the above, it is evident that there must be an application of mind by the authority concerned while approving/ accepting the report of the approved valuer and fixing the reserve price, as the failure to do so may cause substantial injury to the borrower/guarantor and that would amount to material irregularity and ultimately vitiate the subsequent proceedings.”

“19. Thus, in view of the above, it is evident that law requires a proper valuation report; its acceptance by the authority concerned by application of mind and then fIxing the reserve price accordingly ~"1d acceptance of the auction bid taking into consideration that there was no possibility of collusion of the bidders. The authority is duty bound to decide as to whether sale of part of the property would meet the outstanding demand. Valuation is a question of fact and valuation of the property is required to be determined fairly and reasonably.”

20. - - there must be a proper valuation report, which should be communicated to the judgment debtor and he should me his own valuation report and the sale should be conducted in accordance with law. After confirmation of sale, there should be issuance of sale certificate. Court cannot interfere unless it is found that some material irregularity in the conduct of sale has been committed. The Court further held that it should not be a forced sale. A valuer's report should be as good as the actual offer and the variation should be within limit. Such estimate should be done carefully. The Court further held that unless the Court is satisfied about the adequacy of the price the act of confirmation of the sale would not be a proper exercise of judicial discretion.

                                                                                                        .

 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA HON'BLE

DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.

Ram Kishun & Others v. State of U.P. & Others Civil Appeal No. 6204 of 2009

DECIDED ON 24th MAY, 2012

(a) Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 128-Contract-Liability of guarantor surety-Is co-extensive with that of the debtor-Creditor has a right to obtain a decree against surety and principal debtor-Surety has no right to restrain execution of decree against him until creditor has exhausted his remedy against principal debtor-Surety does not have a right to dictate terms to the creditor as to how he should make recovery and pursue his remedies against principal debtor at his instance.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (Para 5)

(b) Right to property-Right to hold property-Is a constitutional right as well as human right-No one can be deprived of his property except in accordance with the provisions of the Statute.                                                                                                                           .

(c) Recovery of Public Dues-Public dues-Recovery of-There must be application of mind by authority concerned while approving/accepting report of approved valuer and fixing reserve price-Failure to do so may cause substantial injury to borrower/guarantor-That would amount to material irregularity and ultimately vitiate subsequent proceedings.

                                                                                                                                                                            (Para 17)

(d) Recovery of Public Dues-Sale of property of guarantor/surety­ Authority is duty bound to decide as to whether sale of part of property would meet the outstanding demand-Valuation is a question of fact and valuation of property is required to be determined fairly and reasonably.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        (Para 19)

(e) Recovery of Public Dues-Auction sale-Set aside after confirmation-Appellant's land sold for Rs. 25,000/- against outstanding dues of Rs. 8,500/-Sale of one-third of land could have served the purpose-Material irregularity in putting the entire property to auction-Nothing on record to show that balance amount of Rs. 16,500/- was paid to appellant-Auction sale stood vitiated-All consequential proceedings quashed-However, such a possession of auction purchaser should not be disturbed at a belated stage.

~

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         (Paras 26 to 29)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Outcome: Petition disposed off

CASES REFERRED:

         1. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 2011

                S.C. 1589.

         2. United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon, 2010 (96) A.I.C. 161

                (S.C.).

         3. Industrial Investment Bank of India, Ltd. v. BiswasnathJhunjhunwala,

                2009 (81) A.LC. 50 (S.C.).

         4. Valfi Khimji and Company v. Official Liquidator of Hindustan Nitro

                Product (Gujarat) Ltd., (2008) 9 S.C.~C. 299.

         5. F.C.S. Software Solutions Ltd. v. La Medical Devices Ltd., (2008) 10

                S.C.C.440.

         6. LachhmanDassv. JagatRam, (2007) 10 S.C.C. 448.

         7. B. Arvind Kumarv. Government of India, 2007 (56) A.I.C. 9 (S.C.)

JSum.) : (2007) 5 S.C.C. 745.

8. Transcorev. Union of India, A.LR. 2007 S.C. 712.

9. S. Mariyappa (Dead) By L.Rs. v. Siddappa, (2005) 10 S.C.C. 235.

10. GajrajJain v. State of Bihar, 2004 (21) A.I.C. 891 (S.C.) : 2004 (57)

A.L.R. 311 : (2004) 7 S.C.C. 151.

 

 

 

11. AnilKumarSrivastavav. StateofU.P., 2004 (22) A.I.C. 5 (S.C.). 12. Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills, A.I.R. 2002

         S.C. 834.

13. Divya Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. v. Union Bank of India, A.I.R. 2000

S.C. 2346. 14. Duncans Industries Ltd. v. State ofU.P., A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 355. 15. Union Bank of India v. Official Liquidator High Court of Calcutta,

A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3642.

16. S.S. Dayanandav. K.S. NageshRao, (1997) 4 S.C.C. 451.

17. D.S. Chohanv. State Bank ofPatiala, (1997) 10 S.C.C. 65.

18. Gurbachan Singh v. Shivalak Rubber Industries, A.I.R. 1996 S.C.

       3057.

            19. Chairman and Managing Director, S.!.P. C. O. T. Madras v. Contromix

       Pvt. Ltd. by its Director (Finance) Seetharaman, Madras, A.I.R. 1995

S.C. 1632. 20. Brij Lalv. Board of Revenue, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1128. 21. Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand and Rajinder Singh, (1994) 1

S.C.C. 131.

22. StateBankofIndiav. IndexportRegistered,A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1740.

23. AmbatiNarasayyav. M. SubbaRao, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 119.

24. Union Bank of India v. Manku Narayana, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1078.

25. State Bank of India v. Saksaria Sugar Mills Ltd., A.I.R. 1986 S.C.

868. .

26. Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd., (1984) 1 S.C.C.

       467.

27. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Bombay v. The Official

Liquidator, High Court, Ernakulam, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1497.

28. State ofU.P. v. Shiv Charan Sharma, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1722.

29. Takkaseela Pedda Subba Reddi v. Pujari Padmavathamma, A.I.R.

       1977 S.C. 1789.

30. Kayjay Industries (P) Ltd. v. Asnew Drums (P) Ltd., A.I.R. 1974 S.C.

       1331.

            31. GajadharPrasadv. BabuBhaktaRatan,A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2593.

/

32. State ofOrissav. HarinarayanJaiswal, AI.R. 1972 S.C. 1816.

33. Navalkhaand Sonsv. Sri RamanyaDas, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 2037.

34. State ofGujaratv. Patel Raghav Natha, A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1297. 35. The Bank of Bihar Ltd. v. Dr. Damodar Prasad, A.I.R. 1969 S.C.

297.

 

COUNSELS APPEARED

       For the Respondents:

Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Mr. B.S. Bilowria and Mr. Dhanjay Garg, Advocates

For the Appellants:

Mr. T.N. Singh, Mr. V.K. Singh, Mr. Umang Tripathi, Janendra Lal & Co., Mr. Vikrant Yadav and Mr. Vinay Garg, Advocates

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                      JUDGMENT

     Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.-This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20th January, 2004 in C.M.W.P. No. 22420 of 200 1 passed by the High Court of  Judicature at Allahabad, by which it has affirmed the judgment and orders passed by the Board of Revenue and other revenue officials in respect of the recovery of Bank dues from the Appellants as their predecessor-in-interest was the guarantor of Bank loan.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that:

(A) One Ganga Prasad had taken an agricultural loan to the tune ofRs. 8,425/- from the Union Bank of India (Banda Branch) on 20th March, 1982 and Chuni Lal, father of the Appellants stood guarantor. Ganga Prasad, debtor died in 1985 and Chuni Lal died in 1986. Chuni Lal could not pay the loan during his life time. Therefore, the Bank initiated the proceedings for

recovery and ultimately sent the matter to the District Collector, Banda for realisation of the loan amount as an arrear of land revenue.

(B) The Collector issued citation/Recovery Certificate on 13th January, 1986 for an amount of Rs. 10,574.45 plus 10% collection charges against Ganga Prasad.

(C) In order to make the recovery, land measuring 3 bighas 2 biswas belonging to said Ganga Prasad was put to auction and it could fetch only a sum of Rs. 6,000/-. In order to recover the balance amount the proceedings were initiated against the Appellants as their father stood guarantor. It is evident from the record that the Appellants raised objections that instead

of putting their property to auction, the loan amount be

recovered from legal heirs of Ganga Prasad as he had left movable / immovable properties and live stocks and other assets to meet the recovery of the Bank loan. Their objections were

!'lot accepted and the land of the Appellants measuring 1 bigha

and 10 biswas was put to auction on 15th March, 1993. Respondent No.4 purchased the said land for Rs. 25,000/-. In respect of the same, sale was confirmed and sale certificate was issued by the Collector in favour of Respondent No.4 and

                             he was put in possession.                                                            ­

(D) Appellants raised varipus objections under the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1952 before the Commissioner, Jhansi, but their objections stood rejected vide order dated 27th July, 1992 only on the ground of delay as the objections were not filed within limitation and no sufficient cause could be shown for inordinate delay.

(E) Aggrieved, the Appellants approached the Board of Revenue, D.P. by filing Revision No.2 Cell/92-93. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 20th March, 2001 as the Revisional Authority did not accept the explanation for condonation of delay.

(F) Aggrieved, the Appellants approached the High Court challenging the said revisional order of the Commissiomn' by

filing Writ Petition No. 22420 of2001 which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated. 20th January, 2004.

Hence, this Appeal.

3. Shri D.K. Garg, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants has submitted that no recovery could have been made from the Appellants as Ganga Prasad debtor had left huge movable/immovable properties and other live stocks which could satisfy the demand of the Bank loan. Moreso, there were two guarantors and father of the Appellants was not the only guarantor. rhus, the entire liability of the remaining unpaid amount could not have been fastened upon them. The properties of the Appellants were worth rupees two lacs which had been sold in auction at a throw-away price of Rs. 25,000/ - only, that too, without following procedure prescribed by law. For recovery of the balance amount of loan, only a part of the Suit land could be sold. The objections filed by the Appellants had been rejected by all the authorities/Courts below on the ground of delay without considering the same on merit. Hence, the said orders are liable to be set aside and Appeal deserves to be allowed.                        ..

4. Per contra, Mr. T.N. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 has submitted that the grievance of the Appellants that they could not be fastened with the total liability of unpaid loan amount had not been raised before the Courts below. The liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of debtor. The auction sale has been confirmed and sale certificate has been issued in favour of Respondent No.4. He had been put in possession more than two decades ago and since then he has made a lot of developments and improved the land. The auction was held fairly and the property had fetched a fair price. Real brother of the Appellant No.1 himself had participated in the auction and given the bid for Rs. 20,000/- though Respondent No.4 had purchased it for Rs. 25,000/-. Thus, it is not permissible that the Appellants should canvass that the auction has not been conducted fairly or Appellants had not been given chance to bring the best buyer or a part of the property could be sold to meet the demand. The Appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

 

5. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

 

There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition of law that in view of the provisions of Sec. 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (hereinafter called the 'Contract Act'), the liability of the guarantor/surety is co-extensive with that of the debtor. Therefore, the creditor has a right to obtain a decree against the surety and the principal debtor. The surety has no right to restrain execution of the decree against him until the creditor has exhausted his remedy against the principal debtor for the reason that it is the business of the surety/guarantor to see whether the principal debtor has paid or not. The surety does not have a right to dictate terms to the creditor as how he should make the recovery and pursue his remedies against the principal debtor at his instance. (Vide: The Bank of Bihar Ltd. v. Dr. Damodar Prasad, A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 297; Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Bombay v. The Official Liquidator, High Court, Emakulam, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1497; Union Bank ofIndiav. Manku Narayana, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1078; and State Bank of India v. Indexport Registered, A.I.R. 1992 S.C.

1740.

 

6. In State Bank of India v. Saksaria Sugar Mills Ltd., A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 868, this Court while considering the provisions of Sec. 128 of the Contract Act held that liability of a surety is immediate and is not deferred until the creditor exhausts his remedies against the principal debtor. (See also; Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. v. Biswasnath Jhunjhunwala, 2009 (81) A.I.C. 50 (S.C.) and United Bank ofIndiav. Satyawati Tandon, 2010 (96)

r A.I.C. 161 (S.C.).

. 7. Section 146 of the Contract Act provides that co-sureties are liable to contribute equally. Thus, in case there are more than one surety/ guarantor, they have to share the liability equally unless the agreement of contract provides otherwise.

 

RECOVERY OF PUBLIC DUES: 

8. Undoubtedly, public money should be recovered and recovery should be made expeditiously. But it does not mean that the Financial Institutions which are concerned only with the recovery of their loans, may be permitted to be have like property dealers and be permitted further to dispose off the secured assets in any unreasonable or arbitrary manner in flagrant violation of statutory provisions.                                .

            9. A right to hold property is a constitutional right as well as a human right. A person cannot be deprived of his property except in accordance with the provisions of statute. (Vide: Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram, (2007) 10 S.C.C. 448; and Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 1589).

Thus, the condition precedent for taking away someone's property or disposing off  the secured assets, is that the authority must ensure compliance of the statutory provisions.

10. In case the property is disposed off by private treaty without adopting any other mode provided under the statutory rules etc., there may be a possibility of collusion/fraud and even when public auction is held, the possibility of collusion among the bidders cannot be ruled out. In the State ofOrissav. HarinarayanJaiswal, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1816, this Court held that a highest bidder in public auction cannot have a right to get the property or any privilege, unless the authority confirms the auction sale, being fully satisfied that the property has fetched the appropriate price and there has been no collusion between the bidders.

 

11. In Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills, A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 834, this Court considered this aspect and while placing reliance upon its earlier judgment in Chairman and Managing Director, S.LP. C. O. T. Madras v. Contromix Pvt. Ltd. by its Director (Finance) Seetharaman, Madras, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1632, held that in the matter of sale of public property, the dominant consideration is to secure the best price for the property to be sold. This can be achieved only when there is maximum public participation in the process of sale and everybody has an opportunity of making an offer.

.

12. Therefore, it becomes a legal obligation on the part of the authority that property be sold in such a manner that it may fetch the best price. Thus essential ingredients of such sale remain a correct valuation report and fixing the reserve price. In case proper valuation has not been made and the reserve price is fixed taking into consideration the inaccurate

valuation report, the intending buyers may not come forward treating the property as not worth purchase by them, as a moneyed person or a big businessman may not like to involve himself in small sales/deals.

 

VALUATION AND RESERVE PRICE:

 

13. The word 'value' means intrinsic worth or cost or price for sale of a thing/property. (Vide: Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd., (1984) 1 S.C.C. 467, and Gurbachan Singhv. ShivalakRubber Industries, AI.R. 1996 S.C. 3057).

14. In State ofU.P. v. Shiv Charan Sharma, A.LR. 1981 S.C. 1722, this Court explained the meaning of "reserve price" explaining that the price with which the public auction starts and the auction bidders are not permitted to give bids below the said price, i.e., the minimum bid at auction.

15. In Anil Kumar Srivastavav. StateofU.P., 2004 (22) ALC. 5 (S.C.) This Court considered the scope of fixing the reserve price and placing reliance on its earlier judgment in Dlmcans Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P., ALR. 2000 S.C. 355, explained that reserve price limits the authority of the auctioneer. The concept of the reserve price is not synonymous with valuation of the property. These two terms operate in different spheres. An invitation to tender is not an offer. It is an attempt to ascertain whether an offer can be obtained with a margin. The valuation is a question of fact, it should be fixed on relevant material. The difference between the valuation and reserve price is that, fixation of an upset price may be an indication of the probable price which the property may fetch from the point of view of intending bidders. Fixation of the reserve price does not preclude the claimant from adducing proof that the land had been sold for a low price.

16. In Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand and Rajinder Singh, (1994) 1 S.C.C. 131, this Court held that in an auction sale and in execution of the Civil Court's decree, the Court has to apply its mind to the need for furnishing the relevant material particulars in the sale proclamation and the records must indicate that there has been application of mind and principle of natural justice had been complied with. (See also: Gajadhar Prasadv. Babu Bhakta Ratan, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2593; S.S. Dayanandav. K.S. NageshRao, (1997) 4 S.C.C. 451; D.S. Chohanv. StateBankofPatiala, (1997) 10 S.C.C. 65. and GajrajJain v. State of Bihar, 2004 (21) A.I.C. 891 (S.C.) : (2004) 7 S.C.C. 151).

17. In view of the above, it is evident that there must be an application of mind by the authority concerned while approving/ accepting the report of the approved valuer and fixing the reserve price, as the failure to do so may cause substantial injury to the borrower/guarantor and that would amount to material irregularity and ultimately vitiate the subsequent proceedings. 

DECISION TO SELL WHOLE OR PART OF THE SECURED ASSETS: 

18. In Ambati Narasayya v. M. Subba Rao, ALR. 1990 S.C. 119, this Court dealt with a case where in execution of a money decree for Rs. 2,400/ - the land was sold for Rs. 17,000/ -. The Court set aside the sale observing that there is a duty cast upon the Court to sell only such property or a portion thereof as necessary to satisfy the decree. (See also: Takkaseela

Pedda SubbaReddiv. PujariPadmavathamma, AI.R. 1977 S.C. 1789. and S. Mariyappa(Dead) ByLRs. v. Siddappa, (2005) 10 S.C.C. 235).

19. Thus, in view of the above, it is evident that law requires a proper valuation report; its acceptance by the authority concerned by application of mind and then fIxing the reserve price accordingly and acceptance of the auction bid taking into consideration that there was no possibility of collusion of the bidders. The authority is duty bound to decide as to whether sale of part of the property would meet the outstanding demand. Valuation is a question of fact and valuation of the property is required to be determined fairly and reasonably. 

SETTING ASIDE AUCTION SALE AFTER CONFIRMATION:         

          20. In Navalkha and Sons v. Sri Ramanya Das, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 2037, this Court while dealing with the confirmation of sale by Court, held that there must be a proper valuation report, which should be communicated to the judgment debtor and he should me his own valuation report and the sale should be conducted in accordance with law. After confirmation of sale, there should be issuance of sale certificate. Court cannot interfere unless it is found that some material irregularity in the conduct of sale has been committed. The Court further held that it should not be a forced sale. A valuer's report should be as good as the actual offer and the variation should be within limit. Such estimate should be done carefully. The Court further held that unless the Court is satisfied about the adequacy of the price the act of confirmation of the sale would not be a proper exercise of judicial discretion. (See also: Kay jay Industries (P) Ltd. v. Asnew Drums (P) Ltd., A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1331; Union Bank of India v. Official Liquidator High Court of Calcutta, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3642 ; B. Arvind Kumarv. Government of India, 2007 (56) A.I.C. 9 (S.C.) (Sum.) : (2007) 5 S.C.C. 745 and Transcorev. Union of India, A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 712.

21. In DiuyaManufacturing Co. (P)Ltd. v. Union Bank of India, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2346, this Court held that a confIrmed sale can be set aside on the ground of material rregularity or fraud. The Court does not become functus officio after the sale is confirmed. In Valfi Khimji and Company v. Official Liquidator of Hindustan Nitro Product (Gujarat) Ltd., (2008) 9 S. C. C. 299, the Court held that auction sale should be set aside only if there is a fundamental error in the procedure of auction e.g. not giving wide publication or on evidence that property could have fetched more value or there is somebody to offer substantially increased amount and not only a little over the auction price. Involvement of any kind of fraud would vitiate the auction sale.

 

22. In F.C.S. Software Solutions Ltd. v. La Medical Devices Ltd., (2008) 10 S.C.C. 440, this Court considered a case where after confirmation of auction sale it was found that valuation of movable and immovable properties, fixation of reserve price, inventory of Plant and Machineries had not been made in proclamation of sale, nor disclosed at time of sale notice. Therefore, in such a fact-situation, the sale was set aside after its confirmation.

 

23. In view of the above, the law can be summarized to the effect that the recovery of the public dues must be made strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The liability of a surety is co-extensive with that of principal debtor. In case there are more than one surety the

liability is to be divided equally among the sureties for unpaid amount of loan. Once the sale has been confirmed it cannot be set aside unless a fundamental procedural error has occurred or sale certificate had been obtained. by misrepresentation or fraud.

 

24. Learned Counsel for the parties are not in a position to point out the specific rules under which the recovery was to be made. Thus, the aforesaid legal principles have been considered on general principles of law as argued by them.

The instant case is required to be examined in the light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions.

Admittedly, the father of the Appellants stood guarantor when Ganga Prasad took loan from the Bank. Though there are some documents to show that there were two guarantors but who was the other guarantor is not evident from the record, nor such a plea had ever been taken by the Appellants before the Courts below. As the Appellants had inherited the estate of the guarantor, they are liable to meet the liability of unpaid amount.

The Appellants land admeasuring 1 bigha and 10 biswas was sold for Rs. 25,000/-. It cannot be held, even by any stretch of imagination, that the land had been sold at a cheaper rate, for the reasons, that the land belonging to Ganga Prasad (principal debtor) measuring 3 big has and 2 biswas in the same village in a close proximity of time had been sold for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- only. Moreso, elder brother of the Appellant No.1 Ram Swaroop had participated in the auction and given the bid of Rs. 20,000/­for the land in dispute. In view of the above, the submission made by Shri Garg that property worth Rs. 2,00,000/- had been sold at a throwaway price of Rs. 25,000/- is not worth acceptance.

25. No fundamental procedural error had been pointed out which would vitiate the order of confirmation of sale and issuance of sale certificate.

26. The total amount of loan sanctioned in favour of Ganga Prasad was Rs. 8,425/-. The Collector issued citation for recovery of Rs. 10,574/- on 13th January, 1986 and the total amount to be recovered including principal amount, interest, collection charges etc came to Rs. 14,483.15P. The property of Ganga Prasad had been sold for a sum of Rs. 6,000/-. So, the total amount to be recovered remained about Rs. 8,500/-. The Appellants land had been sold for Rs. 25,000/ - i.e., three times the amount which was to be recovered. In the facts and circumstances of this case, instead of putting this whole land admeasuring 1 bighaand 10 biswas, the sale of 1/ 3rd of this land could have served the purpose. Therefore, there had been material irregularity in putting the entire property to auction.

27. In case, the auctioning authority had received Rs. 25,000/- from the Respondent No.4 as a sale consideration after adjusting the outstanding dues of Rs. 8500/-, the balance amount ofRs. 16,500/- ought to have been paid to the Appellants. There is nothing on record to show that authorities had ever adopted such a course.

        28. In view of the above, the auction sale stood vitiated and all the consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed. However, for the reasons best known to the Appellants, they have neither impleaded the Bank (creditor) nor any of the legal heirs of Ganga

Prasad (principal debtor). In such a fact-situation, it becomes difficult to proceed with the case any further.

29. Be that as it may, the Respondent No.4 had been put in possession of the land ore than two decades ago and he had made improvements.

This Court has consistently held that such a possession should not be disturbed at a belated stage for the reason that such a person would have spent his whole life savings in improving the land and making developments thereon which may include the construction of residences etc. (See: State ofGujaratv. Patel Raghav Natha, A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1297 and BrijLalv. Board of Revenue, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1128.

30. The Courts below have rejected the case of the Appellants only on the ground of delay. Nothing had been pointed out before us as to on what basis the aforesaid judgment and orders warrant any interference. In view of the above, the Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

However, the Appellants may move an application before the Collector, Banda/concerned authority, in case the excess amount had not been paid to them, for recovery of the same. If such an application is filed and the authority comes to the conclusion that excess amount had not been paid to them, it shall be refunded within a period of 3 months from the date of making the application with 9% interest.

Petition disposed off

DRT Judgments Favourable to Borrowers and Guarantors – Now Full text of such Judgments is being provided on this Web Site with Important Portions marked in Red  

vide link  DRT Judgments Favourable / Useful to Borrowers

We have been providing citations and extracts of judgments favourable / useful to Borrowers and Guarantors. Subsequently several borrowers approached us to provide the full text of the said judgments. Hence we have now started providing full texts of such judgments on our this web site itself as above. Since the advocates are quite busy in their routine work, we have marked the important portion of such judgments in Red. Thus with passage of time, a library of important judgments with full text in soft copies and important portions marked in Red is being built up on the internet at our web site. The borrowers should go through such judgments periodically and apprise their advocates. It is needless to mention that such valuable information is free of cost in the best interests of borrowers and guarantors. You may therefore spread the word among the litigant borrowers, guarantors and their advocates to visit the above link periodically. If one finds judgments useful and favourable to the borrowers and guarantors, he may mail the full text of such judgment for publication on our web site.

 

horizontal rule

    

DRT Legal Solutions

 

Attorneys at Law of Torts, Injury and IPR Claims

HomeContentsProducts & ServicesFrequently Asked QuestionsUseful Article-BorrowersUseful Article-GuarantorsRBI GuidelinesNotes-Law of TortsNotes-DamagesMiniArticles-Letters to EditorUseful Interactions with Clients & VisitorsSecuritisation Act-CommentsAbout Us-DRT SolutionsUseful Tips for DRT Advocates|| 138 NI Act Cheque Dishonour Cognizance Acquittal | NCLT, National Company Law Tribunal, BIFR, SICA  |  Video Interview - BS Malik, Sr. Supreme Court AdvocateLegal Forum of IndiaSuccess & Results of Our GuidanceDRT Orders in favour of Borrowers & GuarantorsNPA, Debt due, Rehabilitation of Sick SME IndustriesOur Replies to Queries  on Current DRT Matters, Court Decisions etc.Measure of damages & Calculations under Torts & ContractsVideo Interview - GC Garg, Ex-Senior Bank OfficialSolar Healing, Yoga, Projector, Rebirth etc.Swami Ramdev, Yoga Guru, Cure for All Diseases, Medical Science RevolutionCourt Technologies IT Presentation Video ArgumentsArchiveDRT Solutions Weekly Mail for Borrowers & Guarantors   All India DRT Conference 2011 at IndoreArticle by Ram Kishan on Management & Technology in Indian JudiciarySARFAESI Securitisation Securitization Actar SA NPADRT Judgments Favourable / Useful to Borrowers

 

Contact Information :- Phones (India):- Mobile- +91-969-1103689, Off. & Res. +91-731-4049358,

E-mail - ramkishandrt@gmail.com and ramkishan@drtsolutions.com

Popularity of our web site :- The key word for search of our website is 'drt'  or any phrase commencing with 'drt'  We are on the top in Google Search for 'drt' among 28,60,000 results globally. In most of the search engines like yahoo, msn, google, excite, altavista, mamma, alexa etc., To verify, you may visit www.yahoo.com, www.msn.com, www.rediff.com, www.indiatimes.com, www.altavista.com, www.google.com, www.excite.com, www.hotbot.com, www.123india.com, www.aol.com, etc. Our reference appears in www.economictimes.com, www.amazon.comwww.financialexpress.com, www.lawcrawler.com, www.findlaw.com, www.law.com, www.supremecourtofindia.com, www.supremecourtonline.com

(2) We have created a separate web site www.usindolegal.com which deals exclusively with our US joint venture enterprise for activities like BPO, legal BPO, DRT etc. This site has started appearing in the search results of Google, Mamma, Alexa and Yahoo.

Application of Law of Torts in claiming Damages from Municipal Corporations for demolition of structures, closure of shops etc:- In many parts of the country, the Municipal Corporations are demolishing structures like shops and houses which existed for number of years. The shops existing for number of years are proposed to be shut down. The affected persons should claim Damages under the Law of Torts, which would be substantial. It is learnt that in Delhi itself about 5 lac shops are to be closed down and about 25 lac persons would be out of jobs. All these persons should file damage suits in the civil court. Since the damages would be substantial, the suits may be filed as Indigent Persons. Since the damages would attract interest, the usual delay by the civil courts will not affect the final outcome. The affected shop owners may discuss the details with us on phone.

Our Articles for Borrowers and Guarantors:- Our articles on DRT matters have been published in the Financial Express. The All India Manufacturers Organisation in its famous web site www.aimoindia.org has reproduced copies of our four articles. These original articles can be searched in the archive of the Financial Express in its web site www.financialexpress.com Two of these articles have been reproduced in other pages of this web site. 

Useful link www.WorldVideoBusiness.com :- WorldVideoBusiness-WVB® is a business to business e-marketplace source of international trade leads, and tender opportunities from companies and government organizations around the globe.

About Us in Brief :-  (1) We specialize in DRT (Debt Recovery Tribunal) and NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal) matters. As a whole you may approach us for all DRT Problems and Solutions as well as matters connected with ARCIL i.e. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited,  We have a Joint Venture with an America based law firm for various activities like BPO, legal BPO and DRT. The details of the said American firm and the joint venture may be seen at the page - Our US Joint Venture with Anand Ahuja Associates or in www.usindolegal.com (2) For your all problems including those in DRT, please phone us or send e-mail. Please give your contact details along with your problems in brief. As a whole you may approach us for all DRT Problems and Solutions.  (2) With our Legal Opinion, you need not worry about the Securitisation Act or other DRT matters or NCLT. Please visit the page Products & Services and Frequently Asked Questions (3) On account of our expertise in the Law of Torts and Banking and experience past 15 years, we can help you to submit suitable defence with winning strategy in DRT cases, Securitisation Act, Guarantors' defence etc.  (4) We need only copies of all available documents  to render our expert 'Legal Opinion' which will be quite useful and valuable to you particularly in DRT i.e. Debt recovery Tribunal. (5) We have also handled assignments for preparation of damage claims against Electricity Boards, Insurance Companies, Municipal Corporations etc. all on the basis of the Law of Torts.  (6) The DRT counterclaims is to be prepared well in advance so that it could be raised at proper time in DRT or other forum to safeguard the securities and assets. (7) Several DRT counterclaims drafted by us are being handled by different advocates at DRT Mumbai, DRT Delhi, DRT Jabalpur etc. Thus DRT advocates are available in these cities. Cases in other Debt Recovery Tribunals are under process. (8) This site is updated monthly mostly on every first Monday of the month or for urgent release on any day with latest material. (9) For further details about us, please visit the page About Us-DRT Solutions As a whole you may approach us for all DRT Problems and Solutions. We hail from the place to which Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Acharya Rajnish belong and hence this site is dedicated to them.

Our this web site is dedicated to Yoga Rishi Baba Ramdev Ji Maharaj:- Our this web site is respectfully dedicated to Yoga Rishi Baba Ramdev Ji Maharaj whose method of Pranayam has cured even incurable diseases and thus has revolutionized modern medical science. For further details please visit our special page by clicking here Baba Ramdev Ji Maharaj, Yoga Guru, Cure for All Diseases, Medical Science Revolution

Site also dedicated to:-   (1) Swami Ramdevji, Acharya Balkishan and their Guru Pradumn Maharaj.

                                             (2) H.H. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Acharya Rajnish, the greatest gurus of all time www.maharishi.com, www.osho.com

                                           (3) Shri Hira Ratan Manek (HRM) for his pioneering work on Solar healing vide his web site www.solarhealing.com and forum at www.lifemysteries.com                                    

We regularly practice TM and SCI of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. We also regularly practice Hath Yoga including Pranayam based on Baba Ramdev Ji  Maharaj. We daily watch his global TV program on Astha Channel from 05:30 AM to 8AM and 8PM to 9PM Indian Standards Time. On Sanskar channel, we daily view the discourse of Pradumn Maharaj from 4 AM to 5:30 AM. Many chronic diseases such as Cancer, Parkinsons' disease, Polio, Asthma, Hypertension, diabetes etc. have been cured by the said method of Pranayam which can be learnt even by watching his program on TV. Since 30th March '06, we have started practicing Sun Gazing as prescribed by HRM.

                                    (3) Shri Satyanarayan Morya alias 'Babaji' for his praiseworthy service to our nation. Please visit his site www.artistbaba.com 

Disclaimer:- We have no branch or setup other than at Indore. It is observed that some persons are using name of our firm as well as name of our web site. We have not given  any such authority to anyone to do so. Under such facts and circumstances, if anybody suffers any loss, we shall not be responsible. If such instance comes to notice of someone, we may kindly be informed.

Last Modified:- Please see the top of the Home Page

Copyright © 2001-2021 - DRT Legal Solutions, India. All rights reserved.