- (1.) THE Judgment of the Court was as follows: the Court: Both the above appeals have been preferred by the appellant, prema Gupta, against two orders, being order dated 2nd May, 2006 (in G. A. No. 940 of 2006, E. C. No. 15 of 1998) and order dated 10th May, 2006 (in g. A. No. 4949 of 1998, E. C. No. 15 of 1998 with E. O. S. No. 320 of 1998), passed by the Hon'ble First Court.
(2.) THE appellant Prema Gupta is the mother of the judgment debtor, one ashok Kumar Gupta, who suffered a decree on 21st August, 1998 passed by a Hyderabad Court for a sum of Rs. 20. 91 lakhs approximately. The decree was subsequently transmitted to this High Court for the purpose of execution. It is at the stage of execution of the decree that the appellant Prema Gupta, for the first time, approached the Hon'ble First Court for the purpose of trying to assert the fact that her son Ashok Kumar Gupta, who was the judgment debtor, has no right, title and interest over any of the flats in question, which were to be sold in execution of the decree suffered by her son. The Hon'ble first Court, while passing the order dated 2nd May, 2006 has, inter alia, observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had already recorded in the judgment and order dated 26th September, 2005 that Prema Gupta has never pressed her claim as the owner of the property and that her application for intervention was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an order dated 8th August, 2005. The Hon'ble First Court has further held in the order dated 2nd May, 2006 that the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not reserve her liberty to apply before the Hon'ble First Court after dismissal of her application. It may be perhaps appropriate to refer to the order dated 2nd May, 2006 in its entirety. The same is set out herein below: "the Court: One Ashok Kumar Gupta suffered a decree dated August 21, 1998 in Hyderabad Court for a sum of Rs. 20. 91 lakhs approximately. The decree was transmitted to this Court for execution. Thereafter series of litigations were initiated by this Court at the instance of the said Ashok kumar Gupta either through his wife or his mother or through the new company set up by him to avoid the execution of the decree. The present application is one of such applications made by his mother. She claims to be the owner of Flat Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 of premises No. 12, loudon Street Calcutta- 700 017, which are under possession of the receiver. The Receiver has already sold the said flats in a public auction subject to confirmation of this Court. I have not yet confirmed the sale. Ms. Tapati Ghosh, learned Advocate, appearing for the applicant, submits that her client purchased these flats in 1977. She allowed her son to use these flats for running his business. She has not, however, granted any tenancy right to his son or to his business concern. Earlier the new companies set up by the judgment debtor claimed tenancy of these flats in question under the applicant before me. Neither the applicant did object at that stage nor claimed any ownership as recorded by the Apex Court in the judgment and order dated September 26, 2005 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5893-5894 of 2005. The said judgment of the Apex court has been annexed to the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the decree holder appearing at pages 22-29 thereof. In page 27 of the said affidavit being internal page six of the said judgment of the Apex Court it was recorded, "at no point of time she had pressed a claim of being the owner of the property. " Ms. Ghosh, appearing for the applicant, submits that in order 21 Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Executing Court is the appropriate court to adjudicate her right. She was mis-advised while approaching the apex Court. Now, she has approached this Court under Order 21 Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and I should independently examine her right over the property in question irrespective of finding of the Apex court. In support of her claim she submits that payments were made in respect of the flats in question in phases by her and/or her husband and her son has no right, title and interest over any of the flats in question which could be sold in execution of a decree suffered by her son. I have perused the application. I am convinced that this is another attempt made by the judgment debtor through his mother to avoid the decree which he suffered. The Apex Court already recorded that the applicant before me never pressed her claim as an owner of the property. Her application for intervention was dismissed by the Apex Court by another order dated august 8, 2005. In such application, she claimed for identical reliefs. The apex Court did not reserve her liberty to apply before me after dismissal of her application by the Apex Court. The instant application is totally mis-conceived and, as such, is dismissed. There would, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order be made available to the parties, if applied for. "
(3.) IN so far as the other impugned order is concerned, that is to say, the order dated 10th May, 2006 it appears that the said order was passed on an application for sale of the properties of the judgment debtor, wherein Prema gupta was one of the interested parties who wanted to give her bid, but prayed for further time to consider as she was not in a position to give her bid at that point of time. The order dated 10th May, 2006 is also reproduced hereinbelow in its entirety: "the Court: pursuant to the advertisement the Receiver has received three offers. Out of them one offerer has given an offer below the reserved price and as such the Receiver has rejected his offer. The other two offerers are represented through Advocates before me. The highest offer received by the Receiver is Rs. 57 takhs. I have granted liberty to the parties to outbid the highest offerer. The decree holder has given offer for a sum of Rs. 62 lakhs. One of the interested parties being represented by Ms. Tapati Ghosh being the mother of the judgment debtor also wants to give bid, but she prays for further time to consider as she is not in a position to give her bid right now. The Receiver is directed to accept the offer given by the decree holder for a sum of Rs. 62 lakhs. Since the offer has been made by the decree holder the amount is to be adjusted as against the decretal sum. The Receiver is, however, directed not to complete the formalities in favour of the decree holder till two weeks after the Summer Vacation. Both the judgment debtor as well as Ms. Ghosh's client are given liberty to bring suitable offer from any outsider to outbid the decree holder. In case any such offer is not received by the Receiver within the stipulated period, the Receiver would. be entitled to complete the formalities with regard to execution of conveyance in favour of the decree holder by way of adjustment of the decretal sum. In case the Receiver receives any suitable offer within the stipulated date, he shall bring it to the notice of the Court. The Receiver is, however, granted liberty to refund the earnest money to the unsuccessful bidders. All parties concerned including the Receiver are to act on a xerox signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking. ";