9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... identally, the High Court recorded that no mala fide could be attributed in respect of the questioned auction sale and that the auction purchaser was not a private individual but a body established under the statute, i.e., the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Rahuri respondent no. 6, hereafter. THE FACTS 2. The basic facts leading to the questioned auction sale before the High Court are not in dispute. 3. The appellant sanctioned cash credit loan of Rs.95 lakh to the society. Default in liquidating the debt having occurred, the appellant lodged a dispute case Dispute Case No.389 of 2001 on 7th March, 2001 before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Maharashtra under section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 the 1960 Act, hereafter for recovery of Rs.1,05,98,710/-. The dispute case stood allowed and vide an award dated 24th June, 2011, the appellant was held entitled to recover Rs.1,05,98,710/- with interest @ 17.5% per annum with effect from 1st October, 2000 from the society. 4. In liquidation proceedings which had started in the meanwhile, initially an interim order dated 3rd April, 2002 was passed calling upon the society to submit its say ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fresh valuation of the property was undertaken through the Sub-Registrar, Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. He valued the property to the tune of Rs.87,33,200/- paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit before the High Court. From the same paragraph, it appears that the Liquidator also "obtained the valuation of the property from the open market, which was come to the tune of Rs.2,47,48,000/-". The Director of Handlooms and Textile respondent No. 2 granted permission on 1st December, 2015 to the Liquidator to proceed with the e-tender process. 10. On 12th February, 2016, the Liquidator issued e-auction notice in a daily newspaper and invited offers stipulating 14th March, 2016 as the date for holding of auction. 11. On 2nd March, 2016, the appellant informed the District Sub Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ahmednagar specifying the liability of the society in a sum of Rs.3,78,82,837/- as on 31st January, 2016 with interest @ 17.5%. A request was made by the appellant that the sale price received through e-auction be credited in its account. It is of great significance to note that the appellant even in this letter dated 2nd March, 2016 did not object to the property, put up for auction sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 2016, the valuation of the property of the society undertaken by the appellant showed an accretion. It is in such circumstances, he contended, that the appellant has a genuine grievance of the property put up for auction sale not being appropriately valued and that, in fact, there was gross undervaluation. 15. It was next contended by Mr. Hansaria that the procedure prescribed by the 1960 Act was not substantially followed by the Liquidator while inviting offers from interested buyers so as to ensure that the best price could be fetched. Our attention was drawn to several corrigenda that were issued postponing the dates of auction from time to time. It was contended that all such corrigenda, including corrigendum 5 specifying 25th May, 2016 as the date of auction, were not published in any newspaper. Consequent thereto, there was no adequate publication of the date for holding auction and only two bidders participated whereas the requirement of law is for participation by a minimum of three bidders. 16. Mr. Hansaria further contended that the High Court erred in returning a finding that the entire process of auction sale of the property of the society culminating in purchase th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id three bidders turned up at the auction. In all fairness, the officers of the Government cannot be blamed if any particular buyer, despite showing an early interest, does not turn up at the auction to compete with the other interested buyers. 21. Mr. Varma concluded by submitting that the appeal is without merit and, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 22. Appearing on behalf of the respondent no.6, Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel contended that allegations levelled by the appellant of mala fide having vitiated the process of auction are absolutely unfounded. None of the officers of the Government or the Chairman of the respondent no.6 were parties to the writ petition of the appellant eo nomine. Law is well settled that the Courts should be loath to examine allegations of mala fide in the absence of the persons, against whom such an allegation has been made, being arrayed as a respondent by name. According to him, the appellant has become wiser and filed an application for impleadment belatedly to cover up the omission; hence, such application ought to be dismissed in limine. 23. On merits, Mr. Deshmukh submitted that the respondent no.6 is a creature of a statute and a bona fid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28. The appellant has also placed on record certain statements of accounts in support of its stand that a sum of Rs.5,28,32,307/- is outstanding from the society towards principal, interest and other costs/charges. ANALYSIS AND REASONS 29. Having noted the facts that triggered the writ petition before the High Court at the instance of the appellant as well as the steps taken, post the auction sale, we are tasked to decide whether the justice of the case demands grant of any relief to the appellant and, if so, to what extent. 30. It could be true that the procedural formalities ordained by the 1960 Act and the rules framed thereunder might not have been followed to the 'T', as contended by Mr. Hansaria. Nonetheless, it is the appellant which, by its negligence, seems to have allowed the auction process to progress to the extent of finalisation of sale in favour of the respondent no. 6. If indeed valuation of the property of the society suffered from any infirmity, so much so that any reasonable person could form an opinion of the property being undervalued, what has surprised us is the conduct of the appellant in invoking the jurisdiction of the writ court late. Much before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the dispute case was allowed) was held liable in a sum of Rs.1,05,98,710/- payable to the appellant with interest @ 17.5% per annum with effect from 1st October, 2000. 32. In this context, one cannot overlook that the respondent no.6 had expressed interest to purchase the property of the society pursuant to the sale notice dated 24th August, 2013. It clearly suggests that notwithstanding Rs.4.10 crore being shown as the upset price in the advertisement, the respondent no.6 was ready and willing to compete with other interested buyers. Therefore, at least at that stage, the respondent no.6 was willing to shell out Rs.4.10 crore for purchase of the property. That the bid process did not materialize for lack of adequate number of bidders fortuitously worked to the advantage of the respondent no.6. In the subsequent auction sale process, the respondent no.6 practically purchased the property for a song; and, that too, after a lapse of 3 (three) years. The appellant had placed facts and figures in its rejoinder affidavit filed before the High Court to demonstrate at what price the adjacent and neighbouring properties were disposed of by sale, post 2013. The escalation of price, demon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
