Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2013 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 815 - SC - Indian LawsMaintainability of suit - Offering of highest bid - absence of a concluded contract - seeking relief u/s 34 of the Specific Relief Act - property on lease for a period of 90 years - The first defendant on published in the local newspapers for auction of nine shops and a plot earmarked for Cinema Hall specifying the date of auction and furnishing necessary information. According to the plaintiff, the reserved price of the Cinema plot was fixed at ₹ 1,80,200/- and the auction of the property was conducted on 11.3.1977 under the supervision of one Mr. Raj Kumar Singh Bisen, the then Assistant Housing Commissioner(AHC) of the first defendant Board. In the auction, the plaintiff (respondent) offered the highest bid of ₹ 1,31,500/- and as per the terms and conditions of the auction, he had deposited ₹ 26,300/- i.e. 20% of the bid amount, plus ₹ 500/- as earnest money. the plaintiff then asked to first defendant for issuance of the allotment letter in his favour, the dispute arised, when AHC informed the plaintiff that the third defendant Housing Commissioner of the Board had rejected the bid amount deposited by the plaintiff and the same was refunded by way of DD. The Plaintiff aggrieved filled suit in trial court, later on aggrieved defendant filed a review application challenging the findings and reasons recorded in the HC judgment contending that there was an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore prayed for review of the said judgment and order, which was dismissed by the HC after hearing the parties. Therefore, the defendants have filed these appeals. HELD THAT:- The important factual and legal aspects have not been examined in proper and constructive manner either by the trial court or by the second appellate court. Therefore, the impugned judgment, order and decree are liable to be set aside. The substantial questions framed by the court in the second appeal did not arise for its consideration. The High Court ought to have noticed that the legal right claimed by the plaintiff seeking relief u/s 34 of the Specific Relief Act on the basis of the pleadings is wholly untenable in law. In view of the fact that no legal right accrued in his favour in the absence of a concluded contract which was said to have existed by mere offering of highest bid in relation to the property in question to obtain the property on lease for a period of 90 years amounting to disposal of the property of the first defendant being an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution, no right was accrued upon the bidder in relation to the property in question. Therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable and the suit filed on the basis of the alleged cause of action did not arise. Hence, the trial court could not have granted any relief by not framing the relevant and proper issue and answering the same. This aspect of the matter is not considered by the trial court. Therefore, the impugned judgment is set aside by the first appellate court by recording reasons. It also did not address and examine the points that arose for consideration as framed by this Court in this judgment. However, the conclusion arrived at by the first appellate court in setting aside the impugned judgment and dismissing the suit is perfectly legal and valid. The said judgment has been erroneously interfered with by the High Court by framing substantial questions of law. Hence, the appeals must succeed.
|