Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
IRSHAD ALI
Jai Narain Singh – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue Lucknow – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
IRSHAD ALI, J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for legal heirs of respondent Nos.4 to 6 and Sri Devesh Mishra, learned Additional CSC for respondent-State.
2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner is challenging the order dated 29.03.2006 annexure 10 to the writ petition passed by respondent No.1 upholding the order dated 04.04.2001 annexure 9 to the writ petition passed by respondent No.2.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that Shyam Narain - grand father of respondent Nos.4 to 6 took a loan from State Bank of India which was not repaid with the result recovery certificate was issued on 09.08.1985 by the bank to the Collector for realization of the amount. Writ of citation moved and being aggrieved writ petition No.10002/88 was filed permitting the borrower to pay the dues in installments but the amount was not deposited.
4. Sale proclamations issued and served on the borrower and after due publicity auction could not held. Again sale proclamation issued but this time also sale could not be held. On 01.12.1990 sale pr
Confirmed auction sales cannot be set aside for alleged inadequacy of price or lack of publicity without proof of fraud or substantial injury.
The main legal point established is that an auction sale can be set aside if there are substantial irregularities and fraud, and the application to set aside the sale was filed within the limitation ....
Auction sales conducted under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act must not be disturbed without substantial evidence of irregularity; procedural compliance is paramount.
The importance of proper valuation, fair auction, and maximum public participation in the auction process was emphasized by the court.
Non-compliance with the requirement to deposit the remainder of the purchase money within the specified time renders the auction sale a nullity.
The court upheld the validity of the execution sale, ruling that the appellant failed to prove material irregularities or substantial injury, affirming the finality of the trial court's decree.
A sale under Order XXI Rule 90 can only be set aside if the applicant proves both material irregularity and substantial injury resulting from it.
The borrower failed to apply to the Recovery Officer to set aside the auction sale on the grounds of material irregularity, mistake or fraud in publishing or conducting it within a period of thirty d....
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
