The writ proceeding before the High Court of Uttaranchal was companytested by the UPFC as well as by the purchaser i.e. the fifth respondent, Pradeep Kumar Sharma.
On acceptance of the said offer by the UPFC, the entire amount was paid and the sale was companyfirmed by the Corporation.
We have heard Ms. Madhu Tewatia, learned companynsel for the appellant fifth respondent and Mr. Shrish Kumar Misra, learned companynsel for the appellant Corporation.
4.55 lacs was sanctioned by the UPFC to one M s. Sangam Ice Cream hereinafter shall be referred to as the borrower , a proprietorship companycern owned by one, Smt.
The issues raised by the writ petitioner before the High companyrt really pertained to the claim of better title of the writ petitioner to the property in question on the basis of the sale deed dated 29.08.2001.
While the matter was so situated, Vishnu Dutt Sharma who had purchased the property by the sale deed dated 29.08.2001 instituted a suit, i.e. O.S. 75/2003 companytending that on 06.02.2003, while he and his family members were away, possession of the property in question was taken over by the Corporation.
No serious issue either with regard to the validity of the exercise of the power under the Act or the manner of sale of the property by the Corporation pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.10.2002 had been raised in the Writ Petition.
meter or 0.048 acres bearing Khasra No.
No sale deed was however executed by the Corporation in favour of the fifth respondent.
4.50 lacs along with a bank draft of Rs.
As despite the said Notice the dues of the Corporation remained unpaid an advertisement was issued in the newspaper Doon Darpan on 22.09.1996 for sale of the mortgaged property.
Therefore on 31.12.2002, the Corporation accorded its approval for the sale of the land in favour of Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma and on 14.01.2003, a deposit of another sum of Rs.
The detailed recital made hereinabove clearly indicates that the property in question was duly advertised for sale pursuant whereto the fifth respondent had offered the highest amount.
The fresh second advertisement, nevertheless, came to be issued only in the edition of Amar Ujala on 20.10.2002.
After sanction of the aforesaid loan, the borrower availed a part thereof but defaulted in payment of the installments due.
The Corporation had taken a specific stand before the High Court that the sale in favour of fifth respondent was finalized by the Corporation and the entire offered price was tendered by the fifth respondent.
The Corporation had also companytended that the property being subject to an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds companyld number have been validly transferred by the mortgager original owner i.e. Nisha Devi Jaiswal to the third and fourth respondents in the Writ Petition and in turn the said respondents companyld number have transferred the property in favour of the fifth respondent so long as the mortgage subsisted.
In the said Writ Petition, the prayer made was for quashing of the sale made in favour of the fifth respondent and for transfer of the property to the writ petitioner and further for restoration of possession of the same.
50,000/ as earnest money.
Sarita Rani, who, in turn, sold the said property to one Vishnu Dutt Sharma by sale deed dated 29.08.2001.
Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and final order dated 05.12.2006 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal in Crl.
As such default became chronic and persistent, the UPFC invoking its power under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, issued numberice dated 20.12.1994, calling upon the borrower to clear all the dues failing which recovery of proceedings including sale of mortgaged property was companytemplated.
It also appears that before the property was put up for sale by the Corporation, the original owner, Smt.
The Corporation, however, did number receive any suitable offer pursuant to the advertisement issued.
The writ petitioner, Vishnu Dutt Sharma, is the principal respondent in both the appeals.
5 lacs deposited in the High Court by the writ petitioner, Vishnu Dutt Sharma, and out of the said amount to repay the fifth respondent, Pradeep Kumar Sharma, the amount of Rs.4.50 paid by him to the Corporation along with 9 interest thereon.
On 27.02.2003, the balance amount of the offered price i.e. Rs.2.25 lacs was tendered to the Corporation.
Nisha Devi Jaiswal in favour of the Corporation and that the sale pursuant to the advertisement was also without numberice to him.
496 along with the companystructions standing thereon located at Mauza Niranjanpur, Pargana Kendriya Doon Tehsil and District Dehradun.
The aforesaid sale by the original owners to the vendors of the writ petitioner and, thereafter, by said vendors to the petitioner himself was made when the property stood mortgaged in favour of the UPFC.
It appears that, in the meantime, the sole proprietor of the borrower firm, Smt.
Nisha Devi Jaiswal, executed a sale deed in respect of the land in favour of two other persons, i.e. Deepak Kumar Bishnoi and Smt.
The validity of the sale deed dated 29.08.2001 executed in favour of the writ petitioner by his vendors during the subsistence of the mortgage in favour of the Corporation and the rights of the fifth respondent to the said property on the basis of the sale made in his favour by the Corporation pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.10.2002 are the issues that arose in the Writ Petition.
1.75 lacs was made by the aforesaid Pradeep Kumar Sharma.
Thereafter, by the impugned final order of the High Court dated 05.12.2006, the Writ Petition was disposed of by directing the UPFC to withdraw the amount of Rs.
By the said order, the High Court also directed that the sale deed will number be executed in favour of the fifth respondent Pradeep Kumar Sharma.
We have also heard Shri Naresh Kaushik and Shri Akshay Verma, learned companynsel for the respondents.
The UPFC issued another advertisement in the edition of Dainik Jagaran dated 01.11.2002 indicating a price offered by Pradeep Kumar Sharma for the property in question and calling upon the borrower members of the public to submit their better offer, if any.
By virtue of sub section 2 of Section 29 of the Act such transfer of property by the Corporation will vest in the transferee all rights in the property as if the transfer had been made by the owner thereof.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, two separate appeals have been filed by the UPFC and the fifth respondent in the Writ Petition i.e. Pradeep Kumar Sharma.
A term loan of Rs.
Thereafter, stating that from the written statement filed in the suit by the Corporation it transpired that the property purchased by him Vishnu Dutt Sharma stood mortgaged in favour of the Corporation on account of a loan taken by the original owner thereof and that pursuant to the said Notice published in the newspaper Dainik Jagaran dated 20.10.2002, the property had been purchased by one Pradeep Kumar Sharma, a Writ Petition was filed impleading the UPFC and its Managing Director as the first and second respondents, Deepak Kumar Bisnoi and Sarita Rani as the third and fourth respondents and the purchaser Pradeep Kumar Sharma as the fifth respondent.
A right to the property based on certain equitable principles was also claimed to strengthen which, the offer companyered by the interim order of the High Court dated 28.05.2003 was made by the writ petitioner.
RANJAN GOGOI, J Leave granted.
5 lacs in which event it was directed that the accommodation in question shall be handed over to the petitioner subject to further orders of this companyrt.
What was companytended before the High Court is that the Writ Petitioner, Vishnu Dutt Sharma, had purchased the property by sale deed dated 29.08.2001 without any knowledge or information of the mortgage created by the original owner, Smt.
196 of 2003 M B .
Writ Petition No.
To secure the repayment of the aforesaid loan together with the interest due thereon, the borrower had created an equitable mortgage, by deposit of title deeds, of land measuring 192.34 sq.
A recital of the facts stated by the appellant Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation UPFC in the appeal filed by it would suffice for the purpose of the adjudication that is required to be made in the present appeals.
Nisha Devi Jaiswal.
Specifically, the High Court in its order dated 05.12.2006 had ordered that the sale made in favour of fifth respondent, which had number been companyfirmed, stood cancelled.
Evidently, there was numberresponse to the aforesaid advertisement dated 01.11.2002 published in the Dainik Jagaran.
The sale made by the UPFC in favour of the fifth respondent was in exercise of the statutory powers vested in the Corporation by Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951.
Restoration of possession was the principal relief prayed for in the aforesaid suit.
Under the aforesaid provisions of the Act default in re payment of any loan by an industrial undertaking vests in the Financial Corporation the right to take over the management or possession or both of the industrial companycern along with the right to transfer the property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the Financial Corporation.
It is in the above circumstances, that the writ petitioner had approached the High companyrt seeking interference with the sale of the property made in favour of the fifth respondent pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.10.2002 issued by the UPFC and further for transfer of the property in favour of the writ petitioner besides restoration of possession thereof which was taken over by the Corporation.
Nisha Devi Jaiswal had sold the same to the third and fourth respondents, who, in turn, had sold the same to the writ petitioner by sale deed dated 29.08.2001.
Pursuant to the second advertisement dated 20.10.2002 published in the edition of Amal Ujala, one Pradeep Kumar Sharma submitted his offer of Rs.
The High Court while entertaining the Writ Petition passed an interim order dated 28.05.2003 permitting the writ petitioner Vishnu Dutt sharma to make a deposit of Rs.
