Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 1997 (12) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1997 (12) TMI 663 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:

1. Opportunity to lead evidence.
2. Character of the sale as a private sale.
3. Defect in the sale certificate.
4. Application of res judicata.
5. Compliance with Supreme Court orders.
6. Possession of the property.
7. Jurisdictional error.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Opportunity to Lead Evidence:

The petitioner argued that the executing court was obliged to grant an opportunity to lead evidence, and its failure to do so constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. The court, however, found this contention to be misconceived. It held that all relevant orders were already before the executing court, and there was no need for additional evidence. The court emphasized that the objector had raised the same issues in various proceedings, including before the Supreme Court, which had already been decided. Therefore, there was no prejudice caused by not allowing further evidence.

2. Character of the Sale as a Private Sale:

The petitioner contended that the sale had lost its character as a public auction due to the Supreme Court's order dated 1-12-1994, which they argued gave it the color of a private sale. The court rejected this argument, stating that the sale was confirmed by the executing court under Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code and upheld by the Supreme Court. The court noted that the Supreme Court's order under Article 142 of the Constitution of India was to ensure complete justice and did not alter the nature of the sale.

3. Defect in the Sale Certificate:

The petitioner argued that the sale certificate issued by the executing court did not satisfy the necessary legal requirements. The court found no merit in this argument, stating that the auction purchaser had complied with all directions of the Supreme Court, and the sale certificate was valid. The court emphasized that the sale certificate conveyed proper title to the auction purchaser and was upheld by the Supreme Court.

4. Application of Res Judicata:

The respondent argued that the present objections were barred by the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata. The court agreed, noting that all issues raised in the present petition had been raised and decided in previous proceedings, including before the Supreme Court. The court held that the objections were frivolous and intended to delay the execution proceedings, and thus were barred by res judicata.

5. Compliance with Supreme Court Orders:

The court examined whether the order of the Supreme Court dated 1-12-1994 had been complied with. It found that the auction purchaser had deposited the required amounts within the extended period granted by the Supreme Court. The court emphasized that the Supreme Court's orders had attained finality, and there was no issue left for determination by the executing court.

6. Possession of the Property:

The petitioner raised issues regarding the possession of the property, arguing that the auction purchaser had not complied with the Supreme Court's order. The court found this contention to be without merit, noting that the Supreme Court had accepted the possession of the auction purchaser. The court held that the dispute over possession was unfounded and that the auction purchaser was entitled to the property.

7. Jurisdictional Error:

The petitioner argued that the executing court's order was without jurisdiction. The court rejected this argument, stating that the executing court had acted within its jurisdiction and in accordance with the orders of the Supreme Court. The court emphasized that there was no jurisdictional error in the impugned order.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the revision petition, finding no merit in the objections raised by the petitioner. It upheld the executing court's order, emphasizing that all issues had been finally determined by the Supreme Court, and there was no scope for further controversy. The court also imposed costs of Rs. 2,000 on the petitioner for the frivolous objections.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates