9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant did not object to the valuation. The auction sale notice dated 12th February, 2016 was duly published in the newspapers and did bear reflection of the valuation of the property put up for sale with the upset price, yet, the appellant remained in slumber. It has never been the case of the appellant that it had no notice/knowledge of such notice - It is failed to comprehend as to what prevented the appellant, if at all it was aggrieved by the undervaluation of the property as shown in the notice, to take immediate recourse to available legal remedies to stall the process. The explanation that the appellant was busy in obtaining information after the auction sale was conducted for launching an attack on the process of sale could be correct on facts but by that, precious time was lost. Law is well-settled that a writ court does not encourage petitions from indolent, tardy and lethargic litigants; the writ court comes to the aid of a litigant who approaches it with promptitude and before accrual of third-party rights - That possession of the property had not been taken by the appellant or that its name was not entered in the revenue records are of no significance having regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that the auction purchaser was not a private individual but a body established under the statute, i.e., the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Rahuri respondent no. 6, hereafter . THE FACTS 2. The basic facts leading to the questioned auction sale before the High Court are not in dispute. 3. The appellant sanctioned cash credit loan of ₹95 lakh to the society. Default in liquidating the debt having occurred, the appellant lodged a dispute case Dispute Case No.389 of 2001 on 7th March, 2001 before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Maharashtra under section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 the 1960 Act, hereafter for recovery of ₹1,05,98,710/-. The dispute case stood allowed and vide an award dated 24th June, 2011, the appellant was held entitled to recover ₹1,05,98,710/- with interest @ 17.5% per annum with effect from 1st October, 2000 from the society. 4. In liquidation proceedings which had started in the meanwhile, initially an interim order dated 3rd April, 2002 was passed calling upon the society to submit its say/explanation within the period stipulated as to why an order of dissolution should not be made. Thereafter, a fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valued the property to the tune of ₹87,33,200/- paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit before the High Court . From the same paragraph, it appears that the Liquidator also obtained the valuation of the property from the open market, which was come to the tune of ₹2,47,48,000/- . The Director of Handlooms and Textile respondent No. 2 granted permission on 1st December, 2015 to the Liquidator to proceed with the e-tender process. 10. On 12th February, 2016, the Liquidator issued e-auction notice in a daily newspaper and invited offers stipulating 14th March, 2016 as the date for holding of auction. 11. On 2nd March, 2016, the appellant informed the District Sub Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ahmednagar specifying the liability of the society in a sum of ₹3,78,82,837/- as on 31st January, 2016 with interest @ 17.5%. A request was made by the appellant that the sale price received through e-auction be credited in its account. It is of great significance to note that the appellant even in this letter dated 2nd March, 2016 did not object to the property, put up for auction sale, being valued at ₹2,47,48,000/-, though it is presumed to have notice of the e-auctio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant showed an accretion. It is in such circumstances, he contended, that the appellant has a genuine grievance of the property put up for auction sale not being appropriately valued and that, in fact, there was gross undervaluation. 15. It was next contended by Mr. Hansaria that the procedure prescribed by the 1960 Act was not substantially followed by the Liquidator while inviting offers from interested buyers so as to ensure that the best price could be fetched. Our attention was drawn to several corrigenda that were issued postponing the dates of auction from time to time. It was contended that all such corrigenda, including corrigendum 5 specifying 25th May, 2016 as the date of auction, were not published in any newspaper. Consequent thereto, there was no adequate publication of the date for holding auction and only two bidders participated whereas the requirement of law is for participation by a minimum of three bidders. 16. Mr. Hansaria further contended that the High Court erred in returning a finding that the entire process of auction sale of the property of the society culminating in purchase thereof by the respondent no. 6 did not suffer from the taint of mala fide. Non ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officers of the Government cannot be blamed if any particular buyer, despite showing an early interest, does not turn up at the auction to compete with the other interested buyers. 21. Mr. Varma concluded by submitting that the appeal is without merit and, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 22. Appearing on behalf of the respondent no.6, Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel contended that allegations levelled by the appellant of mala fide having vitiated the process of auction are absolutely unfounded. None of the officers of the Government or the Chairman of the respondent no.6 were parties to the writ petition of the appellant eo nomine. Law is well settled that the Courts should be loath to examine allegations of mala fide in the absence of the persons, against whom such an allegation has been made, being arrayed as a respondent by name. According to him, the appellant has become wiser and filed an application for impleadment belatedly to cover up the omission; hence, such application ought to be dismissed in limine. 23. On merits, Mr. Deshmukh submitted that the respondent no.6 is a creature of a statute and a bona fide purchaser of the property for value. Though the respondent no.6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts of accounts in support of its stand that a sum of ₹5,28,32,307/- is outstanding from the society towards principal, interest and other costs/charges. ANALYSIS AND REASONS 29. Having noted the facts that triggered the writ petition before the High Court at the instance of the appellant as well as the steps taken, post the auction sale, we are tasked to decide whether the justice of the case demands grant of any relief to the appellant and, if so, to what extent. 30. It could be true that the procedural formalities ordained by the 1960 Act and the rules framed thereunder might not have been followed to the T , as contended by Mr. Hansaria. Nonetheless, it is the appellant which, by its negligence, seems to have allowed the auction process to progress to the extent of finalisation of sale in favour of the respondent no. 6. If indeed valuation of the property of the society suffered from any infirmity, so much so that any reasonable person could form an opinion of the property being undervalued, what has surprised us is the conduct of the appellant in invoking the jurisdiction of the writ court late. Much before the auction took place, the appellant was fairly and squarely aw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹1,05,98,710/- payable to the appellant with interest @ 17.5% per annum with effect from 1st October, 2000. 32. In this context, one cannot overlook that the respondent no.6 had expressed interest to purchase the property of the society pursuant to the sale notice dated 24th August, 2013. It clearly suggests that notwithstanding ₹4.10 crore being shown as the upset price in the advertisement, the respondent no.6 was ready and willing to compete with other interested buyers. Therefore, at least at that stage, the respondent no.6 was willing to shell out ₹4.10 crore for purchase of the property. That the bid process did not materialize for lack of adequate number of bidders fortuitously worked to the advantage of the respondent no.6. In the subsequent auction sale process, the respondent no.6 practically purchased the property for a song; and, that too, after a lapse of 3 (three) years. The appellant had placed facts and figures in its rejoinder affidavit filed before the High Court to demonstrate at what price the adjacent and neighbouring properties were disposed of by sale, post 2013. The escalation of price, demonstrated by the appellant, has not surprised us. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
