9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Entitlement to maintain application under Order 21, Rule 90 in insolvency case. 2. Examination of application under Order 21, Rule 90 on merits. 3. Requirement of notice to judgment debtor under Order 21, Rule 72 for auction purchase. 4. Proof of substantial injury under Order 21, Rule 90 for sale irregularity. Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case was the appellant's entitlement to maintain an application under Order 21, Rule 90 in light of an insolvency petition against him. The High Court held that the Order of adjudication related back to the date of the insolvency petition, depriving the appellant of locus standi. The appellant argued for the Madras view over the Bombay view, but the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to delve into this issue as the lower courts had already examined the application on its merits. The application was rejected based on the lack of material irregularity or illegality in the sale. 2. The examination of the application under Order 21, Rule 90 on its merits revealed that the executing Court, as well as the learned single Judge, took a concurrent view and rejected the application. The Supreme Court, after evaluating all circumstances, concluded that there was no material irregularity or illegality vitiating the sale under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 20 applicable in Gujarat. 3. Another issue raised was the requirement of notice to the judgment debtor under Order 21, Rule 72 for the auction purchase by decree holders. The appellant contended that the lack of notice constituted a material irregularity vitiating the sale. While the High Court held that notice was not mandatory under Rule 72, the appellant argued citing decisions from other High Courts that notice was necessary, especially when the upset price was to be reduced. The Supreme Court was inclined to agree but emphasized that under Rule 90, the appellant needed to prove substantial injury resulting from the lack of notice, which was not established in this case. 4. Lastly, the appellant failed to demonstrate substantial injury caused by the irregularities in the sale process as required under Order 21, Rule 90. After a detailed examination, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the decisions of the lower courts in dismissing the application under Rule 90. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
