Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J
Girish Chandra Chaturvedy Son Of Late Shri R.k. Chaturvedy – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank, Arvind Marg – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. These two writ petitions are decided by this order as the facts and issues involved are similar. The facts are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3479/2015.
2. This petition is filed seeking quashing of orders dated 15.10.2003, 28.11.2003 and 08.08.2014, rejection of the objections by the Recovery Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘RO’), dismissal of appeals by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (DRT) and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (DRAT) respectively. Further prayer is for seeking directions to hand over the vacant possession of Plot Nos.502, 503 & 512 situated in Nemi Sagar Colony, Beed Khatipura, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘plots’).
FACTS
3. The relevant facts are that on 25.08.1993 agreement to sell was executed between the petitioner and Smt. Shanti Bhargava, Madhu Bhargava & Yogendra Bhargava (collectively referred hereinafter to as ‘borrowers’). For securing the loan facility availed the borrowers had mortgaged the plots with respondent No.1—Canara Bank (hereinafter ‘the bank’). On failure of the borrowers to maintain financial discipline, the application filed by bank before the DRT for recovery of dues was allowed on 11.06.2
Ownership of immovable property requires a registered sale deed; an unregistered agreement to sell does not confer any title or interest.
Procedural compliance in auction sales is mandatory, and non-compliance renders such sales void.
Point of Law – The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution This power can be exercise....
whether Section 35 of the Act is mandatory or directory the sale held in violation of the said provision is only illegal but not a nullity and therefore, it can be set aside only in the manner and th....
The court affirmed the validity of a mortgage auction, emphasizing banks' rights over secured properties despite challenges from subsequent purchasers and procedural compliance in auction processes.
The court established that adherence to statutory processes for property sale was observed, and petitioners failed to pursue available legal remedies, justifying dismissal.
A transferee of a judgment debtor cannot invoke Order XXI Rule 99 for re-delivery, as their rights must be independent of the judgment debtor's rights.
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
