Back
SANJIV KHANNA, SANJAY KUMAR, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Anil Kumar Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Gopichand Khemani – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. This common order disposes of the present appeals.
3. In our opinion, the High Court, vide the impugned judgment(s), was clearly wrong in affirming the judgments of the first appellate court, which reversed the judgments and decrees of the trial court, dismissing two suits qua Plot Nos. 73 and 74 in Indira Commercial Complex, Pandari Tarai, Raipur, under the Devendra/Devinder Nagar Commercial Scheme, and in declaring the cancellation of allotment of the aforesaid plots in favour of the plaintiffs as illegal.
4. The facts are startling and show that the said plaintiffs, the respondents before us, had not come to the Court with clean hands and were guilty of suppressing important and relevant facts.
5. It is an accepted position that the auction of the said two plots was held on 08.12.1988 and as per the terms of the auction, the plaintiffs/respondents were required to deposit 30% of the bid amount immediately. However, they only deposited 10% of the bid amount. It is the case of the appellants, including the Raipur Development Authority1[For short, “RDA”], that the Chairman confirmed the highest bids given by the plaintiffs/respondents and issued letter dated
The court emphasized that parties must approach the court with clean hands and comply with auction terms, ruling that the plaintiffs' failure to do so justified the dismissal of their suits.
The cancellation of allotment was justified due to the petitioner's failure to comply with payment terms, emphasizing the importance of adhering to auction conditions and public interest.
The court held that no hearing is required prior to cancellation of allotment when auction terms do not provide for it, and the allotment can be cancelled for non-payment.
The court upheld the legality of forfeiting auction deposits due to non-payment, affirming that the auction terms did not require a hearing prior to cancellation.
Public authorities must prioritize transparency and accountability in auction processes, ensuring compliance with contractual obligations to protect public interests.
The demand for misc. expenses, development charges, and lease money was illegal and non est in law as the Guidelines governing the auction did not authorize the respondent-Board to realize these amou....
Cancellation of allotment due to payment defaults by the winning bidder in a public auction.
The court confirmed that auction sales are valid if proper procedure is adhered to, even when the bid amount decreases, provided that no statutory requirements are violated.
A binding contract arises once a bid is accepted, requiring adherence to principles of natural justice before cancellation, especially when objections are pending.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
