9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the sale conducted by the court receiver and confirmed by the single judge. 2. Impleading of respondents No. 1 and 2 in the suit. 3. Legality of the confirmation of sale and deposit made by the appellant. 4. Directions for conducting the sale by open auction. Analysis: The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the validity of the sale conducted by the court receiver and confirmed by the single judge in a suit for foreclosure and sale of hypothecated property. The Division Bench highlighted the irregularities in the sale process, emphasizing that the single judge's actions were improper and lacked due diligence. The Court took suo motu notice of the illegality pointed out by the Division Bench and concluded that the circumstances were sufficient to vitiate the validity of the sale. The confirmation of the sale was deemed illegal, and the Court emphasized that it would not remain a mute spectator to such manifest illegality in court sales. The Court set aside the sale and directed the High Court to conduct a new sale through open auction after due publication to allow all intending bidders to participate. Regarding the issue of impleading respondents No. 1 and 2 in the suit, the Division Bench had directed the single judge to hear the respondents before they were ejected from the property. The Court did not express any opinion on the rights of these respondents in the property, emphasizing that if any party has other rights or remedies, they should be pursued elsewhere according to the law and not within the scope of the current suit for foreclosure. The Court also addressed the legality of the confirmation of sale and the deposit made by the appellant. It was noted that the appellant had only deposited a partial amount with the assurance of depositing the balance after possession, which was deemed illegal. The Court emphasized the need for proper adherence to legal procedures and directed that the sale be conducted in accordance with the law by open auction to ensure fairness and transparency in the process. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the sale and confirmation thereof, and remanded the matter to the High Court for conducting a new sale through open auction. The Court clarified that the scope of the suit for foreclosure could not be widened, and any other rights or remedies of the parties should be pursued separately according to the law. The appeal was allowed with no orders as to costs.
|
