NEW KENILWORTH HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. ASHOKA INDUSTRIES LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-1994-10-12
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ORISSA)
Decided on October 17,1994

NEW KENILWORTH HOTELS (P) LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
ASHOKA INDUSTRIES LTD. Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

B L SREEDHAR VS. K M MUNIREDDY [LAWS(SC)-2002-12-49] [REFERRED TO]
CHOPRA INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX VS. PUNJAB FINANCIAL CORPORATION [LAWS(P&H)-1998-2-82] [REFERRED TO]
JANU NAIK VS. KRISHNAPPA NAIK, S/O ANGARA NAIK [LAWS(KAR)-2014-2-419] [REFERRED TO]
A GNANAN VS. PALANIAPPA [LAWS(MAD)-1997-2-177] [REFERRED TO]
PHILOMINA JOSE VS. FEDERAL BANK LTD [LAWS(SC)-2006-2-56] [REFERRED TO]
SUBBULAKSHMI AMMAL VS. R BALASUBRAMANIAN [LAWS(MAD)-1996-9-109] [REFERRED TO]
M/S DINESH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES VS. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
GREAT GOPALPUR TEA COMPANY LTD VS. COLLECTOR AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR JALPAIGURI [LAWS(CAL)-1995-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
JAI JALARAM COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD VS. NANJI KHIMJI AND CO [LAWS(BOM)-2024-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
VIBHIT ENTERPRISES PVT LTD VS. M B CONSTRUCTIONS [LAWS(BOM)-2012-1-28] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA SINGH VS. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ALL)-2005-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
ABOOBACKER BABU HAJI VS. EDAKKODE PATHUMMAKUTTY UMMA [LAWS(KER)-2002-5-19] [REFERRED TO]
ADANI POWER LIMITED VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2022-4-60] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYA PLASTICS VS. RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-7-65] [REFERRED TO]
LALITABEN GOVINDBHAI PATEL VS. GUJARAT STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION [LAWS(GJH)-2010-10-106] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted,
(2.)We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We do not think that there is any justifiable reason for interference with the order of the High Court of Orissa. The appellant filed OJC No. 5392/94 in the High Court seeking for an order to recall the judgment rendered by the High Court in OJC No. 4047/89 dated 16-9-91 and also to direct impleading of the appellant as a party to the aforesaid writ petition and to hear it afresh in accordance with law. That writ petition was dismissed under the impugned order dated August 16, 1994 holding that the appellant is not a necessary party to the writ petition and the contesting respondent Ashoka Industries Ltd. has a statutory right of redemption under S. 60 of the Transfer of Property Act and that, therefore, the appellant cannot be heard to contend that Ashok Industries Ltd. have no right of redepmtion under S. 60 of the Transfer of Property Act.
(3.)Sri P. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that under S. 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, for short the Act, while taking over the Property, the Corporation shall act in derogation of the right as a mortgagee under S. 60 of the T.P. Act. Therefore, under the proviso to S. 60 when the O.S.F.C. had entered into an agreement with the appellant, it had acted in derogation of the mortgage and, therefore, the mortgagor M/s. Ashoka Industries had no right of redemption. Since the appellant had already offered his bid by tender on November 2, 1989 though his bid was not accepted pursuant to the order of the Court, he has an interest in the bid. It was also contended that the appellant is a licencee to run the Hotel entered into with O.S.F.C. and as such it is a necessary party. Therefore, he had a right to be heard, before the High Court directing M/s. Ahoka Industries Ltd, by order dated 16-9-1991 to work out the right under S. 60 of the T.P. Act. Thirdly, it was contended that this Court in Maganlal vs. M/s. Jaiswal Industries, Neemach, (1989) 4 SCC 344, had decided the question only under S. 31 of the Act. It did not deal with the effect of S. 29. Therefore, the ratio has no application. We find no force in any of the contentions. It is true that the appellant had offered bid by tenders on November 2, 1989 offering to purchase the hotel constructed by Ashok Industries Ltd, and taken over by O.S.F.C. and offered a sum of Rs. 3,18 crores at the sale price. Admittedly, its offer had not become final by virtue of the order of the High Court. The High Court in the order dated 16-9-1991 had given option to Ashok Industries Ltd. to exercise the right of. redemption under S. 60 of the T.P. Act. In furtherance thereof Ashoka Industries Ltd. had admittedly filed a suit and that suit is still pending. Since the appellant had only inchoate right he does get any higher right than mere offerer for its consideration before sale is effected. As seen, there is no sale which is materialised. Though under S. 29 of the O.S.F.C. acts as an owner in putting the property to sale, it does not act in derogation of the right of the O.S.F.C. as a mortgagee and Ashok Industries as mortgagor. This Court has considered in Magan Lals case (supra) the scope of the right under S. 60 and held in paragraphs 13 and 14 (of SCC ) thus:
"It was further held that in a suit for redemption of a mortgage other than a mortgage by conditional sale or an anomalous mortgage, the mortgagor has a right of redemption even after the sale has taken place pursuant to the final decree, but before the confirmation of such sale. In view of these provisions the question of merger of mortgage debt in the decretal debt does not arise at all.

In this view of the matter we are of the opinion that in case the provisions of Order XXXIV, Rule 5 of the Code are held to be applicable to the instant case appropriate relief can be granted thereunder as the order of confirmation of the sale passed by the High Court in favour of the first purchaser has not become absolute due to the pendency of these appeals against that order nor has the right of redemption of Maganlal yet extinguished."



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