9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the highest possible price be fetched for such properties. Further, we have also seen how at every stage valuation reports were submitted by reputed Valuers, first from Mumbai, and then from Chennai, and have no reason to doubt what has been stated to be the Fair Market Value in any of these reports. It may also be pointed out that though the appellant was given several opportunities to bid in the fresh auction conducted, ultimately, for reasons best known to him, he chose to refrain from participating in the fresh auction that was conducted. Reasons disclosed both in the Report dated 26.09.2017 and the letter dated 06.04.2018 from the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, make it clear that there is no arbitrariness that is discernible in the entire auction process. This being the case, we dismiss this appeal and hold Shri Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel, to the offer very fairly made to us. We may indicate that from the figure of ₹ 35 crores, which will be paid within a period of 12 weeks from today directly to the Union treasury, a sum equivalent to interest of 9 per cent on the amount of ₹ 7.78 crores, that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n from CCIT-2, Mumbai and the auction by way of sealed tenders is subject to confirmation by him/her. . . 12. The balance amount by the successful bidder will have to be paid within 90 days from the date of confirmation of sale by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Mumbai. . . 16. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Mumbai reserves the right to reject any tender form any bid including the highest bid, without assigning any reason. In such an event, the money already paid will be refunded to the intending purchaser without any liability of interest. However, no refunds for amounts forfeited shall be made. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the reserve price being fixed at ₹ 30 crores, the appellant was the sole bidder, having bid at a sum which is ₹ 21 lakhs above the reserve price at a total sum amounting to ₹ 30.21 crores. In its letter dated 26.09.2017, respondent No.3 sent a report to respondent No.2, in which it was stated that though the bid of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refraining from confirmation of the sale. On 30.05.2018, fresh auction was conducted and respondent No. 4 was the sole bidder, with the bid being equal to the reserve price of ₹ 31.10 crores. Ultimately, by the impugned judgment dated 27.07.2018, finding no infirmity in the auction process and finding that the cancellation, though without reason, was not arbitrary, the High Court dismissed the writ petition so filed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the cancellation being without reason is per se invalid in law and therefore, ought to have been set aside by the High Court. He also argued that the process of conducting yet another auction after so many auctions had failed, was itself arbitrary and that, as he was the highest bidder at ₹ 30.21 crores, that is ₹ 21 lakhs above the reserve price, the auction sale ought to have been confirmed in his favour. Further, after citing a number of judgments before us, he made a with prejudice offer stating that he was willing to abide by the earlier offer made by him of ₹ 32.11 crores. Shri Kavin Gulati, learned se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e held. We cannot say that the aforesaid reason can be said to be, in any manner, arbitrary. After all, it was in public interest to see that the highest possible price be fetched for such properties. Further, we have also seen how at every stage valuation reports were submitted by reputed Valuers, first from Mumbai, and then from Chennai, and have no reason to doubt what has been stated to be the Fair Market Value in any of these reports. It may also be pointed out that though the appellant was given several opportunities to bid in the fresh auction conducted, ultimately, for reasons best known to him, he chose to refrain from participating in the fresh auction that was conducted. So far as the judgments cited by the appellant are concerned, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever as to the parameters of judicial review in these matters. Broadly speaking, so long as the auction process is conducted bona fide and in public interest, a judicial hands off is mandated by the decisions that have been cited, in particular, Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka Ors. [2012 (8) SCC 216] at paragraph 21. Equally, there c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
