Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4345
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J
ROHIT SACHDEVA & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
DINESH KUMAR SACHDEVA – Respondent
EX.P. 5/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Fanish K. Jain, Mr. Rohit Yadav
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Dewan, Ms. Kashish Jain, Ms. Vedica Gupta
The court affirmed the validity of the bidding process and confirmed the final bid, emphasizing the integrity of proceedings despite the judgment debtor's claims of illness.
Headnote:The court reviewed the bidding process for the property, originally valued at Rs. 4,05,00,000/-. The judgment debtor contended illness prevented participation in bidding. The court found no justification to revisit the already finalised bid. Ultimately, it upheld the conclusive bid of Rs. 4,05,00,000/- and directed further actions regarding deposit of shares. The matter confirmed the integrity of the bidding process under existing laws.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bidding process delayed due to debtor's illness. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 11) |
| 2. no justification found to overturn bidding results. (Para 4 , 5 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. finalization of deposit order and scheduling. (Para 14) |
O R D E R
% 01.08.2025
1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Dewan, learned senior counsel on behalf of the judgment debtor (JD) and Mr. Fanish K. Jain, appearing for the decree holders (DH).
2. Mr. Dewan submits that on the date of the bid before the Local Commissioner, though the JD remained present, however, on account of his illness, he could not participate and offer any bid on his behalf. He submits that the valuation of the property is much higher than Rs. 4,05,00,000/-, and, therefore, as a last opportunity, the matter may be reinstated to the same Local Commissioner for determining the fair market rate, enabling all the parties to offer their respective bids.
3. The aforesaid submissions are strongly opposed by Mr. Jain who contends that various opportunities were given to the parties and the matter has already been delayed substantially. He submits that, once the bid was finalized and knocked down in favour of the DH, there is no reason, at this stage, to undo the entire process.
4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
5. The report dated 08.05.2025 filed by the Local Commissioner appointed vide order dated 08.04.2024 indicates that the Local Commissioner fixed the date for execution of commission on 11.09.2024.
6. After 11.09.2024, the matter was further listed before the Local Commissioner on 03.10.2024, 04.11.2024, 12.11.2024, 28.11.2024 and 10.12.2024, but was adjourned as the JD remained unwell. It was taken on record by the Local Commissioner that the JD was a diabetic patient and his recovery was taking time.
7. When the matter was called out by this Court on 12.12.2024, the parties agreed and undertook to participate in inter se bidding. Accordingly, the opportunity was extended by the Local Commissioner to the parties to participate in bidding process and the matter was listed on 23.12.2024, 16.01.2025, 06.02.2025 and 27.02.2025. On these dates as well, the matter got adjourned on account of the illness of the JD.
8. Eventually, on 23.04.2025 both the parties remained present with their respective counsel for inter se bidding and Ms. Payal Sachdeva, DH-2 appeared through video conferencing.
9. The staring price of bidding was fixed at Rs. 4,00,00,000/- as per the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by this Court. The parties were directed to raise their bids with increase of at least Rs. 5 lakhs.
10. The Mr. Rohit Sachdeva and Ms. Payal Sachdeva, DHs made first offer for Rs. 4,05,00,000/-.
11. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sachdeva, JD was given five minutes’ time to make a counter-bid but he showed his inability to make a counter-bid, allegedly, on account of his illness. On the other hand, he sought time for determining the actual market value of the petition-property. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the bidding process was closed and the bid of DH Mr. Rohit Sachdeva and Ms. Payal Sachdeva for a Rs. 4,05,00,000/- was finalised.
12. There has to be an end to the present proceedings, if they do not suffer from any inherent illegality or irregularity. In the present case, the Court does not find any such perversity, so as to render the proceedings liable to be reopened.
13. Looking at the aforesaid circumstances, the Court finds that there is no reason, at this stage, as to why the matter should be relegated back to the Local Commissioner and, accordingly, the final bid is hereby confirmed.
14. Let Mr. Rohit Sachdeva and Ms. Payal Sachdeva, DHs to deposit the 1/3 share of Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sachdeva, JD within a period of four weeks from today before the Registrar General of this Court.
