Back
2007 Supreme(Del) 2019
High Court Of Delhi
SANJIV KHANNA
URVASHI JAISWAL - Appellant
Versus
USHA RAMSISARIA - Respondents
LPA 1224 Of 2007
Decided On : 09/18/2007
J.P.Sengh, S.K.Bhaduri
The court upheld the validity of the inter se bidding process and emphasized that participants cannot avoid their responsibilities after their bids are accepted.
Headnote:
Inter Se Bidding - Property Partition - The court upheld the inter se bidding process for the partition of property, dismissing the appellant's attempt to avoid liability after her bid was accepted.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered a case involving a preliminary decree for property partition, followed by the appointment of a commissioner to determine if the property could be divided. The parties suggested inter se bidding, which was accepted by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the appellant's attempt to avoid liability after participating in the inter se bidding process, ultimately dismissing the appeal.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the inter se bidding process and the appellant's attempt to avoid liability after her bid was accepted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the inter se bidding process and emphasized that the appellant could not avoid the responsibility cast upon her after participating in the bidding.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the validity of the inter se bidding process and rejecting the appellant's attempt to avoid liability.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 6th September, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge with reference to the inter se bidding which was resorted to by the learned Single Judge in terms of the prayer of the counsel appearing for the parties.
( 2 ) IN this connection we may refer to the order dated 30th August, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge. A bare perusal of the said order would indicate that a preliminary decree was passed in the suit, which was filed praying for a decree of partition and determining the shares of the parties thereto. It was held that the appellant as plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share and that defendants No. 1 and 2, who are husband and wife, are jointly entitled to 1/3rd share and the balance 1/3rd share would go to the defendant No. 3. Admittedly, the defendant No. 1 is the wife of defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 1 has filed the present appeal on which we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
( 3 ) IN the aforesaid suit after the aforesaid preliminary decree was passed, a commissioner was appointed by the court to see as to whether the property could be divided by metes and bounds.
( 4 ) THE Local Commissioner, after making necessary inquiries, submitted a report that the property could be so divided by metes and bounds, but as there were disputes amongst the parties, therefore, all the parties before the Court made a prayer and gave a suggestion that in the first instance the property be put to sale by directing the parties to bid for the same inter se. The aforesaid suggestion given by the parties was accepted by the learned Court and the date was fixed for inter se bidding. All the parties took part in the aforesaid bidding.
( 5 ) THE appellant, who is the defendant No. 1, has now taken up a stand that she did not take part in the bidding. A perusal of the order dated 6th September, 2007 would indicate that Mr. Prabhat Kumar (husband of the defendant 1) had stated before the Court that he had authority to appear on behalf of his wife. In terms thereof inter se bidding was resorted to in which the bid of the defendants No. 1 and 2 was accepted and they were directed to deposit 10% of rs. 3. 70 crores, which was the highest bid.
( 6 ) AFTER making a bid and when such bid is accepted, the appellant is trying to wriggle out of the liability and the responsibility that has been cast upon her, which is not permissible.
( 7 ) WE find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
