Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1968 (11) TMI 108

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... -6-1963. The sale was knocked down in favour of the first respondent for a sum of ₹ 2,05,000, on 19-6-1963 and the application was filed on 17-7-1963. In the said application, the appellants herein had taken the following three grounds for the purpose of setting aside the sale: (1) due notice of the execution or of the application to reduce the upset price has not been served on the petitioners; (2) the property has been sold for a grossly inadequate price inasmuch as the decree-holder has been able to knock off the property for a price which will be a third of its real value; and (3) that by reason of the fraud committed by the decree-holders in getting the upset price reduced, i.e., without notice to the petitioners, the property di .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e said notices were returned with endorsement absent affixed and hence on 29-6-1960 the Court was pleased to order fresh notice by substituted service for 22-7-1960. The substituted service ordered was effected on the petitioners and since they were absent they were declared ex parte on 1-8-1960 after accepting the service as sufficient In those circumstances it will be idle now to contend that no notice was issued to them under Order 21, Rule 66, Civil P. C. As regards the other complaint that they were not served with notices for the subsequent applications for the reduction of upset prices it is found that originally upset price was fixed at 5 lakhs. As the property was not sold the decree-holders filed an application under E. A. 807 of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sale proclamation issued during the summer recess and was anxious to bring the property to sale at least after the reopening of the Court the petition was heard without notice being taken to the petitioners herein and was ordered. Under that, application the upset price was reduced to ₹ 2,00,000, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner's brother Ravindran. Thus it will be seen that the original sale proclamation was settled after notice to the appellants herein as required under Order 21, Rule 66, Civil P. C. and after setting them ex parte. Three attempts were made to sell the property and since no bidders came forward, applications were filed to reduce the upset price originally fixed by Court and, except with regard t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t cannot be said that the Court is acting pursuant to the obligation imposed upon it under Order 21, Rule 66. Civil P. C. Therefore, from the point of view of the provision contained in Order 21, Rule 66, Civil P. C. it cannot be said that, whenever the Court fixes the upset price or alters the upset price, it is under an obligation to give notice to the judgment debtors. 5. Then the question arises whether, independent of Order 21, Rule 66, Civil P. C, the judgment debtor is entitled to notice, whenever the Court, as required by the decree-holder, alters the upset price. In my opinion, a judgment debtor is not entitled to any such notice. The reason is this. When the Court fixes the upset price in a sale proclamation, the Court is not d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... v. Devendra lyer, (1957) 70 Mad LW 493(1). In my opinion, none of these decisions supports the case of the appellants in this case. These decisions merely lay down that under Order 21, Rule 66 , Civil P. C., the Court has an obligation to mention the valuations given by the decree-holder as well as by the judgment debtor, but it cannot designate both these valuations as upset price. On the other hand, Mr. Balasubramaniam was not able to bring to my notice any decision of this Court holding that failure to give notice of an application to reduce the upset price will constitute material irregularity or fraud either in the publication or conduct of the sale, so as to enable the judgment-debtor to have the sale set aside under Order 21, Rule 9 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates