Supreme Court - Daily Orders
S.Nagaraj Sethupathi vs K.Ramamurthy on 24 January, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M. Sundresh
ITEM NO.10 Court 6 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.418/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-12-2021
in W.P. No.8084/2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras)
S.NAGARAJ SETHUPATHI & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
K.RAMAMURTHY & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No.7156/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
IA No.7157/2022-INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No.7155/2022-PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/...)
Date : 24-01-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sriram P., AOR
Mr. M. S. Vishnu Shankar, Adv.
Mr. Sreenath, Adv.
Mr. Mukund P. Unny, Adv.
Ms. Athira G. Nair, Adv.
Mr. Deepak Singh, Adv.
Ms. Prerna Robin, Adv.
Mr. Micheal Rao, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Devashish Bharuka, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Permission to file special leave petition is granted.
Applications seeking exemption from filing C/C of the impugned judgment is allowed.
Signature Not VerifiedApplication seeking intervention/ impleadment is allowed.
Digitally signed by RASHI GUPTA Date: 2022.01.27 17:39:12 ISTReason: Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the petitioner was the highest bidder at Rs.5,60,00,000/- in the 1 auction held on 18.9.2021. He submits that the “general conditions” of the sale notice in condition No.14 (page 99) prescribed that when the auction process is over it does not mean it is final and the same is subject to the confirmation by the High Court. It is his submission that the matter was taken up, it was noticed that while the petitioner had bid Rs.5,60,00,000/-, there was a second bid of Rs.5,50,00,000/- and the third highest bid was of one Thulasidas at Rs.4,50,00,000/-.
In the proceedings before the High Court, it appears that without being a party the third bidder raised his bid to Rs.6,11,00,000/- and it is recorded that the petitioner had raised the bid to Rs.6,10,00,000/-.Learned counsel submits that there was no infirmity in the process of the bid and if the third bidder was permitted to raise his bid, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity to counter the bid. As at the request of the Court he had only raised the bid from Rs.5,60,00,000/- to Rs.6,10,00,000/-. He submits that even thereafter he moved an application before the Court expressing his willingness to raise the bid to Rs.6,51,00,000/- and before this Court he says that after obtaining instructions, that the petitioners are willing to raise the bid to Rs.7,00,00,000/-.
Since the matter pertained only to one of the bids, notice be issued to respondent No.25 who represents the Committee and to the newly impleaded respondent who was the successful bidder.
Notice as aforesaid returnable on 21st February, 2022. Dasti, in addition, is also permitted.
In the meantime, there shall be stay of the operation of the impugned order qua the bid in respect of item No.6 of the enlisted property.
(RASHMI DHYANI) (POONAM VAID)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
2