SETH KASHI RAM CHEMICAL INDIA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-1990-10-15
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on October 29,1990

SETH KASHI RAM CHEMICAL INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

T P TEXTILE WASTE PVT LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-3-211] [REFERRED TO]
BIMAL KUMAR SHARMA VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/COLLECTOR G B NAGAR [LAWS(ALL)-2008-4-200] [REFERRED TO]
AMRIT DYE CHEM INDUSTRIES VS. BONZANZA DURGS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-1998-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
ELECTROHERM INDIA LTD VS. ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY INDIA LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2011-3-156] [REFERRED TO]
SWASTIK AGENCY VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-2009-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
V.M. SPINNING MILLS VS. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE [LAWS(P&H)-2006-9-72] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHEN MEDICAMENTOS PVT LTD VS. ASHOK ENTERPRISE [LAWS(GJH)-2011-8-106] [REFERRED TO]
BLZE ELECTRONICS PVT LTD VS. OSFC [LAWS(ORI)-2010-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
RASHPAL SINGH VS. DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(P&H)-2008-1-294] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)In this writ-petition, the petitioner M/ s. Kashi Ram Chemical (India) has questioned the legality of certain proceedings initiated by the Haryana State Financial Corporation against the petitioner in the matter of recovery of certain debts due to it by putting-up certain hypothecated properties for sale by public auction in exercise of 'Its statutory powers. It would appear that the auction was conducted on 29-3-1990 on the very day this writ-petition came up for consideration before the Court. The Court made an interim-order that if any bids were received at the auction, their confirmation should be stayed pending disposal of the writ petition.
(2.)Subsequently, the dispute between the Corporation and the petitioner appears to have been settled. It would appear that the entire amount due to the Corporation as claimed has been paid. Petitioner has produced a receipt dated 21-9-1990 for the sum of Rs. 1,66,132.30 p. which along with a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs earlier paid is stated to satisfy the claims of the Corporation.
(3.)In the meanwhile Sri Shyam Sunder Goel who had offered the highest bid at the auction has been impleaded to these proceedings. The auction-purchaser asserts that certain rights have accrued to him pursuant to the auction; that the debtor and creditor cannot thereafter settle the matter between themselves to the prejudice of the highest bidder and that he is entitled to have his bid accepted and the auction-sale effectuated.
We are afraid there are at least three obstacles in the way of recognising the bidder's claim. The first is that the auction was itself held pendente lite during the pendency of the writ-petition which had been filed sometime prior to the date of the auction and is therefore subject to its result. Secondly, this Court had expressly interdicted the confirmation of the sale. Thirdly, and this is important, the Fourth-Respondent-Corporation itself, even otherwise, did not deem it prudent to accept the offer. The report of the sale conducting officer is true while the admitted valuation of the property was over Rs. 12 lakhs, the highest bid of only Rs. 8 lakhs and odd offered by Sri Goel was not adequate and that the bid should not be accepted. The terms of the sale notification suggest that the highest-bidder would not ipso facto acquire any right unless the bid is accepted. The stand of the Corporation is that independently of this writ-petition, the Corporation did not consider it prudent to accept the bid even otherwise.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.