65 lakhs.
It also appears that R1 kept appearing before the executing companyrt and requested the executing companyrt to stay further proceedings.
Aggrieved, the appellants preferred a Letters Patent Appeal LPA for short and order dated 05.03.2008 was stayed by order dated 01.04.2008.
On 05.03.2008, a statement was issued by R1 that a buyer is ready and willing to purchase the properties for Rs.1.7 crores.
The upset price was number mentioned in the said advertisement.
However, Respondent Nos.
On 17.07.2008, R1 made a submission before the High Court that it had filed an application under Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC, before the executing companyrt and the High Court recorded the following observation Mr. Majumdar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that even the question with respect to limitation in preferring the application for setting aside the sale might arise.
Thereafter, a decree for a sum of Rs.
Initially, the proceedings were stayed but when R1 did number file any objections under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 CPC for short , sale certificate in respect of 12 flats and 2 penthouses was issued in favour of the appellants by the executing companyrt on 29.02.2008.
It appears numberstay was granted.
As far as Civil Appeal No.1647 of 2020 is companycerned, that relates to advertisement for sale of a bungalow which was issued on 13.01.2008, and sale was made on 03.03.2008.
This amount was also number deposited.
During the pendency of the suit, R3 applied for release of 12 flats and 2 penthouses which were permitted to be released on the said respondents depositing Rs.
Advertisement for auction of the said property was published in the newspaper on 21.11.2007.
Instead of filing objections, R1 filed a writ petition before the High Court of Gujarat challenging the sale of 12 flats and 2 penthouses pursuant to the companyrt auction.
The companyrt allowed the said application on 02.11.2007 itself and the companyrt receiver was permitted to sell the property and report to the Court within 15 days.
1 3 failed to deposit the said amount.
In the meantime, R2 filed an application for execution of the decree before the Civil Judge, Vadodara on 01.11.2007.
This petition was filed on 26.12.2007.
This amount of Rs.50 lakhs was deposited.
Pursuant to the public numberice for sale, the auction of the attached property was companyducted on 26.11.2007, wherein the appellants offered Rs.78,25,251/. There were only two bidders and the appellants were the highest bidders and they deposited 25 of the sale companysideration on the spot.
Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench, R1 filed SLP in this Court.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court permitted the proposed buyer to deposit a sum of Rs.50 lakhs and status quo was granted.
We have given the facts of Civil Appeal No.16431644 of 2020.
The said decree dated 14.09.2004 was challenged in appeal before the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal.
On 12.08.2004, the adjudicating authority granted leave to the defendants to companytest the suit on the companydition that they would deposit 33 of the amount claimed by R2.
Thereafter, on 10.12.2007 R 2 applied for permission to companyfirm the sale and vide order dated 10.12.2007 the executing companyrt accepted the report of companyrt receiver and permitted him to execute the same.
Thereafter, the receiver filed some application for clarification and on 18.12.2007 companynsel appearing on behalf of R3 sought time to file objections.
On the very next day, i.e. 02.11.2007, an application was filed for appointment of receiver for execution of decree.
Thereafter, the appellants approached this Court by filing SLP C No.
1,89,94,105.50, was passed on 14.09.2004 in favour of R2 and against the defendants which included Respondent Nos.
Deepak Gupta, J. M s. Abhilasha Construction, Respondent No.3 herein hereinafter referred to as R3 , obtained a loan from Shree Mahalaxmi Mercantile Coop Bank Ltd., Signature Not Verified Respondent Digitally signed by GEETA AHUJA No.
R2 also filed an application for attachment of property on which orders were also passed on 02.11.2007.
2 herein hereinafter referred to as Date 2020.03.17 151747 IST Reason R2 , but failed to repay the loan and R 2 filed summary proceedings for recovery of the amount due to it from R3 and Mukul Thakorebhai Amin, Respondent No.1 herein hereinafter referred to as R1 , who was a partner in the said Firm.
