2012 (12) TMI 1033 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Order 21 Rules 84 and 85 CPC.
2. Right of the judgment debtor to set aside the auction sale.
3. Interpretation of the term "immediately" in the context of depositing the bid amount.

Summary:

Issue 1: Compliance with Order 21 Rules 84 and 85 CPC
The appellant challenged the auction sale on the grounds that the auction purchaser did not deposit 25% of the bid amount immediately on the fall of the hammer, as mandated by Order 21 Rule 84 CPC. The Executing Court and the High Court found that the auction purchaser had deposited 25% of the bid amount on the date of the auction (8.10.2010) and the remaining 75% within the statutory period, thus complying with Order 21 Rules 84 and 85 CPC. The Supreme Court agreed with this finding, stating that the auction purchaser had complied with the provisions in letter and spirit.

Issue 2: Right of the Judgment Debtor to Set Aside the Auction Sale
The appellant argued that he should have been allowed to deposit the entire sale amount to set aside the auction sale, as he had a pre-emptive right and was willing to pay the amount. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant did not comply with the mandatory requirement of depositing the amount within the stipulated time as per Order 21 Rule 89 CPC. The Court emphasized that the rule is in the nature of a concession to the judgment debtor, who must strictly comply with its requirements. The appellant's application on 1.12.2010 without depositing the amount was not entertained, and the sale was confirmed on 23.10.2010.

Issue 3: Interpretation of the Term "Immediately"
The appellant contended that the term "immediately" in Order 21 Rule 84 CPC required the deposit of 25% of the bid amount at the fall of the hammer. The Supreme Court referred to its judgment in Talco Bank, which extended the meaning of "immediately" to mean "with all reasonable speed, considering the circumstances of the case." The Court found that the auction purchaser had paid Rs. 2.40 crores by way of drafts on 8.10.2010, which satisfied the requirement of "immediately."

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the judgments of the Executing Court and the High Court. The appellant's belated offer to deposit the amount was rejected, and the auction sale was confirmed. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed with no order as to costs.