SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 1854

RUMA PAL, C.K.THAKKER
Himadri Coke & Petro Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Soneko Developers (P) Ltd. – Respondent


ORDER :

Ruma Pal, J.

Leave granted.

2. Respondent 2 obtained a decree against Respondent 3. For execution of the decree, the property belonging to Respondent 3 was put up for sale. After a series of advertisements pursuant to the last sale notice, Respondent 1 was found to be the highest bidder for the property having bid an amount of Rs 62 lakhs. Respondent 1 deposited 25% of the offered amount. In terms of the conditions of sale, the balance amount was to be deposited on 15-4-2003. It was made clear in the terms and conditions of sale that the payment was to be made by way of bank draft.

3. Undisputedly Respondent 1 did not make payment of the balance amount within the specified time. The Tribunal set up under the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal accordingly cancelled the sale to Respondent 1 by order dated 16-6-2003.

4. Respondent 1 filed an appeal before the Presiding Officer. While the appeal was pending, the appellant submitted an offer to the Receiver for purchase of assets of the judgment-debtor for a sum of Rs 64 lakhs. According to the appellant, this offer was placed before the Recovery Officer by 12-9-2003. The appellant then made an application before the Debts Recovery Tr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top