In a recent legal case involving a land auction, the court’s legal analysis led to the resolution of a long-standing dispute. The court upheld the sale of the property to a successful bidder and directed the appellant to make a substantial payment to the respondent. This case highlights the importance of proper legal procedures and the significance of court decisions in resolving property disputes.
Facts
- The appellant informed the respondent on 07.04.2012 that the OTS proposal was revoked, and the respondent owed Rs. 15,91,424/- as of 31.03.2012.
- On 14.07.2012, the appellant took possession of the property and conducted an inventory of the immovable assets.
- Abdul Haleem Siddiqui participated in the auction held on 31.12.2012 and was the highest bidder, subsequently constructing and selling flats on the property.
- The loan was declared a Non-Performing Asset on 30.02.2002 with an outstanding amount of Rs. 2,39,812.41.
- The respondent challenged the auction sale by filing a writ petition, which was upheld by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and the High Court.
- The respondent was aware of the auction notice dated 30.11.2012 but disputed its service.
Also Read: Analysis of Bail Conditions in Criminal Appeal No. INSC 48/2024
Analysis
- Appellant did not maintain proper records of the service of notice dated 30.11.2012
- Respondent was fully aware of the auction notice dated 30.11.2012
- The auction purchaser had constructed flats and sold them to third parties.
- The respondent was fully aware of the auction process as per the notice dated 30.11.2012.
Also Read: Conviction Upheld for Murder and Concealment of Body
Decision
- The appellant is directed to pay an amount of Rs.54,00,000/- to the respondent in full settlement of claims.
- Payment to be made within five weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the order.
- The amount will be transferred electronically to the respondent’s bank account.
- No order as to costs.
- Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
- Sale by the appellant in favor of Abdul Haleem Siddiqui is upheld.
- Impugned orders from the High Court are set aside.
- In case of non-payment within the specified period, appellant liable to pay interest at 12% per annum.
Also Read: 1991 Decree Invalid: No Determination of Rights in Property Dispute
Case Title: BOMBAY MERCANTILE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY Vs. M/S U.P GUN HOUSE (2024 INSC 62)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006244-006245 / 2021
