Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2016 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 1612 - SC - Indian LawsAuction - execution of an order of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies - Section 76 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 - HELD THAT:- The scheme of the 2002 Act which replaces the 1984 Act is a little different. Section 84 of the 2002 Act corresponds to Section 74 and 76 of the 1984 Act. With this difference-that disputes that have been referred to arbitration are now to be settled or decided by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Registrar, and the provisions, therefore, of the 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act shall apply to such arbitration as if the proceedings for arbitration were referred for settlement or decision under the provisions of the said Act. It can be seen that Section 84(4) and (5) of the new Act provide for a different scheme. Equally, Section 94 which provides for execution of certain decisions and orders made under the 2002 Act, mentions various Sections, but Section 84 is conspicuous by its absence. This is obviously for the reason that the entire proceedings have now to be conducted under the 1996 Act, including execution of the arbitration Award made under the said Act. The question before the High Court was whether proceedings initiated under the old Act could continue under the said Act. The proceeding in execution initiated Under Section 85(c) of 1984 Act and pending before the authorities under the said Act prior to 19th August, 2002, would continue unhindered by the repeal of the 1984 Act by the 2002 Act. The opportunity to have the sale certificate set aside under Rule 37(13) has not been availed. Ground V of the Writ Petition is in reality a ground relatable to Rule 37(14), as, according to the Petitioner, there is a material irregularity in conducting the sale. For the Petitioner to make out such a ground, he has first to apply to the recovery officer within 30 days from the date of sale. And further, the Appellant has to make out a case that he has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity. Ground V of the Writ Petition does not even refer to substantial injury for the reason that is not the appellant's case that the property has been sold at a gross undervalue. No relief can be given in the Writ Petition so as to circumvent the statutory provisions contained in Rule 37(13) and (14). Ground VI is totally vague and lacking in particulars. A charge of malafides has to be made out with great clarity and particularity. Also, the Appellant cannot claim to be in the dark as every auction sale was publicly advertised in newspapers. Application allowed.
|