ORDER:- This Court issued Rule nisi on 19.02.2007.

2. Heard Sri C. Kodandaram, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner, and Sri Ch. Shiva Reddy representing Sri C.V. Rajeeva Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondents.

3. Sri C. Kondaram, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner, had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and also had drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant rules governing the field and would maintain that even in the light of Section 64 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 since the process of putting and process of sale had been completed, a right had accrued to the writ petitioner, and hence, the Banking Institution cannot take such a stand so as to avoid the confirmation of sale, and hence, the writ petition to be allowed. The counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions.

4. On the contrary, Sri Shiva Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri C.V. Rajeeva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, had taken this Court through the relevant provisions of the Rules and would explain that the Forest Officer had conducted the sale, but on verification, it was found by the concerned Committee that all

Click Here to Read the rest of this document