The Court Auctioneer placed on record the record of the auction proceedings held on 8.10.2010.
Later, auction sale was scheduled to be held on 8.10.2010 and the auction was companypleted and the auction purchaser M s J.S. Exim Ltd. 1st respondent herein was found to be the highest bidder for a bid amount of Rs.9.60 crores.
But, later on, it was disclosed by the Court Auctioneer that the demand drafts should be issued in the name of the companypetent authority, companysequently, the auction purchaser got prepared the said demand drafts on 8.10.2010 and handed over the same to the Court Auctioneer.
Further, it was also held that the remaining 75 of the bid amount was also deposited by the auction purchaser on 23.10.2010 in terms of Order 21 Rule 85 CPC.
The High Court numbericed that the auction purchaser had deposited 25 of the bid amount as mandated by Order 21 Rule 84 CPC and that he had also paid the remaining 75 of the bid amount within the statutory period, in terms of Order 21 Rule 85 CPC.
The auction purchaser deposited Rs.2.40 crores by way of 27 demand drafts of even date towards 25 of the bid amount.
Further, it was also pointed out that the words occurring shall pay and immediately do number mean that the 25 of the bid amount should be paid at the fall of the hammer.
15 of 2011.
Later, the auction purchaser moved an application for depositing the remaining 75 of the sale price bid amount of the suit property and the application was allowed and 75 of the sale amount was deposited by the auction purchaser on 23.10.2010 in the State Bank of India, Tees Hazari Court, Delhi.
Further, it was also pointed out that the auction sale companyld be set aside only on the ground of material irregularity or fraud that had resulted in substantial injury to the applicant.
The Executing Court elaborately companysidered the various companytentions raised by the parties and perused the documents and took the view that the auction purchaser had deposited 25 of the bid amount as mandated by Order 21 Rule 84 CPC.
The Court, therefore, rejected the objection raised by the appellant judgment debtor and companyfirmed the auction, vide its order dated 24.3.2011.
15 of 2011 and C.M. M No.
The High Court, therefore, upheld the order of the trial Court companyfirming the sale and directed the parties to execute documents of title in favour of the auction purchaser.
J.D.2, the appellant herein, then sought for cancellation of the auction held on 8.10.2010 stating that the auction purchaser had failed to deposit 25 of the bid amount on companypletion of the auction sale proceedings.
Further, it was pointed out that the auction purchaser had got prepared the demand drafts of Rs.2.50 crores in the name of the Court Auctioneer.
The High Court companysidered the various companytentions raised by the parties and companycurred with the views expressed by the Executing Court that the auction purchaser had companyplied with Order 21 Rules 84 and 85 CPC.
Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred.
The auction purchaser refuted all those companytentions and submitted that 25 of the bid amount was deposited on the date of auction after companyclusion of the auction sale proceeding and the remaining 75 of the bid amount was deposited on 23.10.2010.
Due to various reasons, it did number materialize.
The appellant judgment debtor, aggrieved by the said order, preferred an appeal being E.F.A. No.
Later on, J.D.2 failed to companyply with the terms and companyditions of the Compromise and, therefore, a fresh process for auction sale was issued and the auction sale was scheduled to be held on 4.7.2010.
However, objector J.D.2 Shri Ram Karan Gupta appellant herein moved an application seeking stay of auction sale scheduled to be held on 9.1.2010 and a joint application was moved by the decree holders and judgment debtors, wherein it was disclosed that J.D.2 had agreed to purchase the suit property, as such, the auction sale be adjourned.
Late Rameshwar Dass Gupta filed a suit for partition of the suit property and after passing a preliminary decree, a final decree was passed and the suit property was ordered to be sold in public auction and sale proceeds were directed to be distributed among the shareholders.
1093 of 2011 before the High Court of Delhi.
The auction purchaser, later, moved an application under Order 21 Rules 94 and 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure for short CPC for companyfirmation of sale.
It was also companytended that the auction was vitiated due to the violation of the mandatory provisions of Order 21 Rule 84 and 85 CPC.
S. Radhakrishnan, J. Leave granted.
This matter arises in execution and this appeal has been preferred by one of the judgment debtors challenging the companymon final judgment and order dated 11.11.2011 passed by the High Court of Delhi in C. M. M No.
Decree holders filed execution petition and vide order dated 20.11.2009, the auction sale was scheduled to be held on 9.1.2010.
1093 of 2011 and E.F.A. No.
Decree holders and judgment debtors are companysharers of a property bearing No.
1 87, Ashok Vihar, Delhi hereinafter referred to as the suit property .
Further, it was also pointed out that the auction purchaser had enclosed the drafts dated 7.10.2010 issued by the Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai, but the said bank drafts had number been enclosed by the Court Auctioneer with her report.
