Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.47 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 29 in The State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Gajraj Jain vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 7 May, 2004
36. The provision relating to recovery proceeding is akin to that of a proceeding under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 which authorises the financial corporation to take possession of the assets of the defaulting company or business concern. The concept of best possible price is considered to be the dominant consideration for the sale under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, and as held by the Suprmeme Court in Gajraj Jain v. State of Bihar (2004) 7 SCC 151, if publicity and maximum participation is to be attained, then the bidders should know the details of the assets and in the absence of the proper mechanism, the auction sale becomes only a pretence. The Supreme Court time and again underlined the need for publicity to ensure maximum participation of bidders which in turn requires that a fair and practical time to be given to the purchasers for the purpose of effective participation in the sale.
Mathew Varghese vs M. Amritha Kumar & Others on 3 November, 2014
24. The DRAT considered the issue regarding invalidity of the sale on account of violation of Rules 8(6) and 9(1) in the light of the contentions taken by the Bank by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar & Ors (2014) 5 SCC 610. The DRAT scanned the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the rules made thereunder and more particularly Rules 8 and 9(1) and arrived at a factual finding that the sale was made without giving thirty days notice and without proper publication. The DRAT also found that the Sale Certificate was issued without proper confirmation. The DRAT finally concluded that "this is a case where the appellant/borrower is able to show that the holding of the sale was improper and illegal."
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Mathew Varghese vs M.Amritha Kumar . on 5 December, 2014
34. The Supreme Court in Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar (2014) 5 SCC 610 considered the provisions of SARFAESI Act and the mandatory nature of Rules 8 and 9(1). The Supreme Court in the said judgment very clearly observed that it is the constitutional and human right of a person to hold property and that in the event of a fundamental procedural error occurred in a sale, the same can be set aside. The Supreme Court indicated the mandatory nature of the publication and statutory period before the date of notification and sale in the following words: