Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Cherry Bahl – Appellant
Versus
The Cooperative Store Ltd. – Respondent
W.P.(C) 2820 of 2021, CM APPLs. 25049 of 2023, 25050 of 2023
Decided On : 09-08-2023
Official Liquidator - Writ Petition - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - [W.P.(C) 2820/2021] - The judgment discusses the issue of reinitiating the bidding process for Shop Nos.7 & 8, J-Block, Main Market, Saket, New Delhi. The court refers to the detailed order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated September 25, 2020, which directed the petitioner to hand over the shops and permitted M/s. Super Bazar to take assistance from the police if needed. The court found that the petitioner's husband had no right, title, or interest in the shops and rejected the plea to re-initiate the bidding process. The petition was dismissed as an abuse of process of law and the petitioner was directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking reinitiation of the bidding process for Shop Nos.7 & 8, J-Block, Main Market, Saket, New Delhi. The shops were the absolute and exclusive property of the Cooperative Stores Ltd. The petitioner's husband, a former employee of M/s. Super Bazar, had illegally encroached the shops.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's husband had no right, title, or interest in the shops and rejected the plea to re-initiate the bidding process. The petition was dismissed as an abuse of process of law and the petitioner was directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000.
Issues: The issues considered were the maintainability of the petition, the entitlement of the petitioner to the prayers made, and the plea of adverse possession of the shops under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's plea to re-initiate the bidding process was not maintainable and was barred by the principle of Res-judicata. The plea of adverse possession of the shops under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, was also not sustainable.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as an abuse of process of law and the petitioner was directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
CM APPL. 25103/2023
1. This is an application filed by the Official Liquidator namely P.C. Pratihari for taking on record the amended memo of parties. The prayers made are:
"In view of the above, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
(a) allow this application by taking on record amended memo of parties in WPC No.2820/2021 attached with this application and.
(b) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the present facts and circumstances of the case."
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the prayer as made is granted.
3. The amended memo of parties is taken on record. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 2820/2021
4. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
"1. Pass an order directing the Respondents to re-initiate the bidding process regarding shop no. 7 and 8, J Block, Main Market Saket, New Delhi and permit the Petitioner to deposit the remaining bid amount of Rs.(2,33,20,000/-) with this Hon'ble Court.
2. Direct the Respondents to restrain from taking any steps which adversely affects the Petitioner's possession of the shop no. 7 and 8, J Block, Main Market Saket, New Delhi till final disposal of the present petition.
3. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
5. Suffice to state that the prayers made in the petition are for reinitiating the bidding process in respect of Shop Nos.7 & 8, J-Block, Main Market, Saket, New Delhi.
6. It may be stated, the issue with regard to possession/eviction of the husband of the petitioner was a subject matter of an application filed by the Official Liquidator for M/s. Super Bazar, a Multi-State Cooperative Society, being I.A.No.181072/2019 in M.A. No. 677-678/2018 in M/s. Writers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. A.K. Mishri Official & Ors., SLP Civil Nos. 8398-8399/2005.
7. The said application was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on September 25, 2020 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the detailed order, which shall be reproduced in the later paragraphs of this judgment.
8. Though the petitioner has in her oral submissions and also in the written submissions filed through Mr. Kunal Gosain, Advocate has detailed the facts, we find, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said order has in paragraphs 1 to 8 noted the facts and the submissions made by counsels in the following manner, which we reproduce:
"1 This application has been filed by the Official Liquidator of Super Bazar Cooperative Store Limited, seeking the following relief:
"allow the present application by issuing appropriate directions for eviction of the shop No. 7 and 8, J Block, Saket, Malviya Nagar New Delhi in order to fulfill the obligations following from the order dated 29.03.2016 passed by this Hon'ble court in the abovementioned special leave petition"
2 The respondent, Sudhir Bahl, was an employee of Super Bazar. Super Bazar, which was a multi-state cooperative society, went into liquidation on 5 July 2002. The order of liquidation was challenged by the Employees. Unions before the Delhi High Court, which dismissed CWP Nos 85 and 1138 of 2003 on 19 December 2003. All the employees were retrenched with effect from 15 March 2003. The Official Liquidator has stated that out of 1943 employees, 913 had opted for voluntary retirement. The Assistant Manager (Personnel), Super Bazar, transferred the respondent on 19 July 2003 from the establishment of Super Bazar at Yashwant Place to shop Nos 7 and 8, J Block, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. The respondent has continued to remain in occupation of the shop since then.
3 On 13 October 2005, a notice was issued by the Official Liquidator to the respondent to hand over the keys and belongings of the shop to the department within three days of the receipt of the notice. On 17 October 2005, the respondent stated that he had been unable to attend the office for medical reasons. Another notice was
The judgment establishes the principle that a plea to re-initiate a bidding process may be dismissed as an abuse of process of law if it has already been considered and rejected by a higher court. It....
Petitioners' failure to disclose material facts and misleading statements led to the dismissal of the writ petition, demonstrating the necessity of 'clean hands' in equitable relief.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of considering prima facie case and balance of convenience when granting temporary injunctions in civil disputes.
A person who has no right, title, or interest in a property cannot challenge the sale of that property under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
The plaintiff must have an enforceable legal right to maintain a suit for recovery of damages.
A party invoking writ jurisdiction must disclose all material facts honestly, as suppression and falsehood invalidate claims for equitable relief.
The court established that adherence to statutory processes for property sale was observed, and petitioners failed to pursue available legal remedies, justifying dismissal.
Abuse of process frivolous litigation - Civil courts lack jurisdiction over matters under the SARFAESI Act, except in cases of specific fraud allegations, which must be adequately pleaded - Cost of R....
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
