Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Murli Prasad Nigam vs Bhanupratap Singh Tomar on 4 January, 2017
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Ashok Bhushan
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).90-91 OF 2017
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 24400-24401 of 2014)
MURLI PRASAD NIGAM ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BHANUPRATAP SINGH TOMAR AND ORS ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The initial deposit by the auction purchaser/respondent No.1 of the 25% of the bid amount was not made on the date of the auction as mandatorily required under Rule 9(3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the auction purchaser for a direction for execution of the sale deed was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. In appeal, the decision was reversed on the ground that the Bank in the securitization appeal filed by the borrower, which was dismissed, had admitted that the 25% Signature Not Verified of the bid amount was paid by the auction Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2017.01.06 16:35:10 IST Reason: purchaser and, therefore, the bank was ready to execute the sale deed.
2
3. There is no dispute on the fact that the auction took place on 23.07.2010 and 25% of the bid amount was deposited on 26.07.2010. If that be so, there is clear infraction of the provision of Rule 9(3)of the Rules 2002. The subsequent deposit of the bid amount would be contrary to law and therefore dis-entitle the auction purchaser to an order of execution of the sale deed.
4. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, allow these appeals and direct that out of the deposit of Rs.20 lakhs made by the appellant before the respondent-Bank, the amount paid by the auction purchaser, i.e. Rs.2.25 lakhs be returned to him with 9% interest per annum with effect from the date of payment of the said amount of Rs.2.25 lakhs. The payment of the amount due to the auction purchaser along with interest shall be made forthwith. The matter may now be proceeded with in accordance with law.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ....................,J.
(ASHOK BHUSHAN)
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 04, 2017
3
ITEM NO.39 COURT NO.4 SECTION IVA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).24400-24401/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/05/2014 in RP No. 180/2014 and WA No. 263/2014 passed by the High Court of M.P. at Indore) MURLI PRASAD NIGAM Petitioner(s) VERSUS BHANUPRATAP SINGH TOMAR AND ORS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned order, exemption from filing O.T., interim relief and office report) Date : 04/01/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. N.K. Mody, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Adarsh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Ankur Mody, Adv.
Ms. Apoorva Shukla, Adv. Mr. M.P. Shorawala, Adv. Ms. Prerna Mehta,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. D.K. Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Nitin Kumar Thakur,Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kapur,Adv.
Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv.
Ms. Megha karnwal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Applications for exemption from filing official translation and from filing certified copy of the judgment are allowed.
Leave granted.4
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
(Neetu Khajuria) (Asha Soni) Court Master Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file.)