Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Analysis and ConclusionCourt sales cannot typically be collaterally challenged in another court solely on collusion grounds without specific proof of fraud; mere suspicion fails, protecting judicial finality. Proven collusion allows interference via provisions like Evidence Act s.44 or civil jurisdiction, but success is rare absent evidence. ["C. H. Madhava Rao VS South India Educational Trust, Represented by its Secretary, Madras - Madras"] ["Gangadharan T. V. S/o Thuruthikkattil Velayudhan VS Jeevan Ambatt @ Jagajeevan S/o Velayudhan Kunnath @ Ambatt - Kerala"] ["Anup Kumar Shukla v. Joint Registrar Co-operative Society Raipur - Chhattisgarh"]
Court auctions are a critical mechanism for recovering debts and enforcing decrees, but what happens when allegations of collusion taint the process? Many litigants wonder: can a court sale be challenged on the grounds of collusion in another court? This question arises frequently in execution proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), SARFAESI auctions, and insolvency matters. While confirmed sales carry significant sanctity, Indian law provides limited avenues for challenge, particularly through collateral attacks. This post explores the legal framework, key precedents, and practical considerations. Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Yes, a court sale may be challenged on grounds of collusion in another court. Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, empowers any party in a suit or proceeding to prove that a prior judgment, order, or decree—including one leading to a court sale—was obtained by fraud or collusion, rendering it a nullity without needing a separate suit to set it aside. This applies even to confirmed sales where collusion vitiates the underlying decree, though success hinges on concrete proof. Courts stress that confirmed sales are not lightly disturbed absent grave vitiation like fraud or collusion. Bishunath Tewari VS Mirchi - 1952 0 Supreme(Pat) 65SIDDAGANGAIAH (D) THR. LRS. VS N. K. GIRIRAJA SHETTY (D) THR. LRS. - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 604
As one precedent notes: Sec. 44, Evidence Act provides: 'Any party to a suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment, order or decree... was obtained by fraud or collusion.' Bishunath Tewari VS Mirchi - 1952 0 Supreme(Pat) 65
Once confirmed, court or auction sales achieve finality to uphold public confidence. Interference is exceptional, limited to fraud, collusion, or irregularities shocking the process's root. The High Court ought to have taken into consideration that the confirmed auction-sale could have been interfered with only when there was a fraud or collusion. Celir LLP VS Sumati Prasad Bafna - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1187 Courts refrain from setting aside sales unless perpetration of a fraud/collusion, grave irregularities that go to the root. Celir LLP VS Sumati Prasad Bafna - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1187 Post-confirmation objections are discouraged except on fraud: Entertaining of objections after the sale is confirmed should not ordinarily be allowed, except on very limited grounds like fraud. Eva Agro Feeds Private Limited VS Punjab National Bank - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 840Valji Khimji & Company VS Official Liquidator of Hindustan Nitro Product (Gujarat) Ltd - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1220Celir LLP VS Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 977
Mere underbidding or post-sale higher offers do not suffice without collusion. K. Kumara Gupta VS Markendaya and Sri. Omkareswara Swamy Temple - 2022 3 Supreme 96Celir LLP VS Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 977
Section 44 enables collateral attacks in another proceeding: a party can treat a collusive decree or sale as a nullity without prior reversal. The plaintiff can treat the sale as a nullity on the ground of the fraud of the mortgagee and seek redemption of the mortgage without getting the sale set aside. Bishunath Tewari VS Mirchi - 1952 0 Supreme(Pat) 65 This extends to Gram Panchayat cases and distinguishes collusive (no real contest) from fraudulent proceedings. Saraswati Devi VS Mahabir Pd. Daruka - 2013 0 Supreme(Pat) 1731Saraswati Devi VS Mahabir Prasad Daruka - Current Civil Cases (2013)P. Thangavelu VS R. Dhanalakshmi Ammal And S. Dhanalakshmi Ammal - 1980 0 Supreme(Mad) 381
Challenges require specific pleadings under Order VI Rule 4, CPC: There is no pleading of fraud or collusion raised in plaint... Provisions of Order 6, Rule 4, CPC that plea of fraud, misrepresentation, and collusion has to specifically set out in pleadings. SIDDAGANGAIAH (D) THR. LRS. VS N. K. GIRIRAJA SHETTY (D) THR. LRS. - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 604 Bald allegations fail; proof of deceit and injury is essential.
Prior opportunities bar claims via res judicata or constructive res judicata. Dismissed Order XXI Rule 90 applications prevent fresh suits (Order XXI Rule 92(3)). SIDDAGANGAIAH (D) THR. LRS. VS N. K. GIRIRAJA SHETTY (D) THR. LRS. - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 604Celir LLP VS Sumati Prasad Bafna - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1187
In one case, failure to object pre-confirmation invoked estoppel, dismissing a late challenge alleging fraud in publishing the sale. M/S. A. G. M. Constructions (P) Ltd. VS S. Shibu Kumar - 2010 Supreme(Ker) 526A. G. M. Constructions (P) Ltd. VS Shibu Kumar - 2010 Supreme(Ker) 816
For execution sales, Order XXI Rule 90 requires material irregularity plus substantial injury. Judgment-debtors cannot challenge saleable interest lightly. Saheb Khan VS Mohd. Yusufuddin - 2006 3 Supreme 474Kadiyala Rama Rao VS Gutala Kahna Rao - 2000 2 Supreme 2 Fraud on court (e.g., sham auction via collusion) allows inherent powers, preferably in the executing court. Mubarak Begam VS Sushil Kumar - 1956 0 Supreme(Raj) 273
SARFAESI auctions demand strict compliance (Sections 13(2), 13(4); Rules 5-9). Challenges succeed only on fraud or procedural lapses, like non-separate valuation of movables/immovables. One auction was set aside for collusion insinuations and rule violations, remanded for scrutiny. Everspace Realty LLP. vs Vasu Coco Resorts Pvt. Ltd. - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2505M/s. Aditya Constructions vs The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 2384 Confirmed sales remain shielded post-payment. Celir LLP VS Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 977Eva Agro Feeds Private Limited VS Punjab National Bank - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 840
In a SARFAESI writ, the court upheld sanctity absent fraud: Public auctions can only be set aside on extreme grounds, such as material irregularities or fraud. M/s. Aditya Constructions vs The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 2384
Challenges alleging collusion in sale deeds during suits highlight impleadment needs under Order I Rule 10, CPC, to avoid multiplicity. A purchaser claimed collusion between plaintiffs and family; the court allowed impleadment as a necessary party. Manu Sharma VS Deepak - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 264
In specific performance suits, collusion allegations in agreements were dismissed without proof of readiness/willingness. N. Sanjeeva Reddy VS A. Rajanarsu - 2023 Supreme(Telangana) 670
A court auction delivery order withstood collusion claims where the challenger prolonged proceedings without filing timely applications. C. Govindaraj VS B. R. Asokan - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 488
Limitation under Article 127, Limitation Act, binds Order XXI Rule 90 applications (60 days), vitiated only by proven fraud knowledge date. M/S. A. G. M. Constructions (P) Ltd. VS S. Shibu Kumar - 2010 Supreme(Ker) 526
To challenge: Plead specifics under Order VI Rule 4, CPC; prove via evidence; invoke Section 44 if decree collusive; show no waiver. Prefer timely Order XXI Rule 90 in executing court. Purchasers: Ensure publicity/compliance for defenses.
Understanding these nuances can guide strategic litigation. For tailored advice, engage legal experts familiar with your jurisdiction's precedents.
From the RegistrationRecords, plaintiff learnt that the 3rd defendant is in occupation of an extentof 2 Grounds and 192 sq.ft. Another extent of 12 Grounds is in the name ofSmt.Dhanalakshmi Ammal, who purchased the said property from plaintiff''sfather Sri Lakshmiah Chetty in a Court auction. ... Judgments of courts cannotbe ignored by another court in a collateral proceeding and thatalso on mere suspicion of fraud or collusion, as has been donein this case. ... Rajki....
Another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India and Another v. M/s. K.C. ... Judgments of courts cannot be ignored by another court in a collateral proceeding and that also on mere suspicion of fraud or collusion, as has been done in this case. 21. ... The learned counsel also placed another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kishan Lal Barwa v. ... Another decision in Embassy Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. ... Sharda Saha....
When we look at the above judgement, we find that the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that there is need of “prior permission” not only for private sale but highlights that there is “yet another embargo” of “prior permission” which is to be sought in case of sale to a related party ... Even now though the impugned order has set aside the private sale in favour of OASPL, the very fact that ACRE has not challenged the impugned order shows that the allegations of collusion#HL_....
Besides the same, respondents No.1 and 2 (who were plaintiffs before the Court below) had also challenged the sale deeds dated 12.05.1999 and 06.05.2008, got executed in favour of defendant No.3, 4 and 5, respectively, without any valid sale consideration. ... Gindori, mother of the respondents-plaintiffs, had made appearance in the Court, much prior to the execution of the sale deed, but however, there was silence, maintained on her part. Considering the same, an element of ....
The Judgment and Decree of the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The trial Court failed to consider the plaintiff came to the Court with unclean hands and alleged agreement of sale was prepared in collusion with 1st defendant and her husband. ... Therefore, on the above grounds, the appellant sought for setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court and for dismissal of the suit. 5. ... The appellants are defe....
(2022) 2 SCC 221 and also by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sarv Hitkari Educational Society v. Punjab National Bank and Another , Civil W.P.No.7649 of 2020, dated 19.06.2020. ... granted by this Court on 31.10.2019 in W.P.No.23860 of 2019. ... The petitioner failed to participate in any of the five auctions and approached the Court in 2025 to set aside the auction after five years of the respondent No.5 making payment of the entire sale consideration. ... 12.12.2018The respon....
*** The issues were answered and the learned Single Judge set aside the auction sale on three main grounds. ... The valuation report itself has not been disputed or challenged. 29. We do not agree with the High Court that the machinery should have been separately auctioned or sold. ... ground that on re-appreciation of facts another view is possible. ... She further states that soon thereafter the petitioners will deposit another 20 crores within a reasonable time as may be fixed by t....
The decree holder in collusion with the J.Dr. and in collusion with the intended auction purchaser valued at Rs.1,00,000/- and the Court Amin valued at Rs.2,50,000/- in collusion with the bank officials though it is actually worth is at Rs.10,00,000/-. ... The learned counsel for appellant also placed another reliance in Ambati Narasayya vs. M.Subbarao and another 1989:INSC:309 : 1989 Supp (2) SCC 693. ... By the time of auction on 12.03.1996 by undervaluing the bank officials played a....
On these grounds, I think that the decision of the District Judge that the sale must be set aside should be upheld. ... and that no sale is absolute until thirty days of the receipt of such report by the Court, and until such sale is confirmed by the Court. ... Certain lands were sold in execution of a decree against the plaintiff, who was a judgment-debtor in another action. ... The latter part of the 2nd paragraph seems to put it beyond doubt when it provides t....
From the aforesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the confirmation of the auction sale could be interfered with when the Court found fraud or collusion between the parties as it has been observed in the present case from the conduct of the auction purchaser and the bank authorities and also ... In the present case, the auction having been confirmed on 16 / 16 30-7-2003 by the Court it cannot be set aside unless some fraud or collusion has been proved. We are satisfied that n....
A charge memo can be challenged on limited grounds and the Court can entertain a writ petition on exceptional circumstances. A charge memo can be challenged on a limited ground and a judicial review against the charge memo is certainly limited. Even in case of raising the allegation of mala fides, the authority against whom such an allegation is raised, has to be impleaded as a party respondent in the writ proceedings in his personal capacity. A charge memo can be challenged if the same was issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction, an allegation of mala fid....
There is no pleading of fraud or collusion raised in the plaint. It is provided in Order VI Rule 4 CPC that the plea of fraud, misrepresentation, and collusion has to specifically set out in the pleadings before any finding can be given on the same. Thus, the first appellate court and High Court both have travelled beyond the pleadings to give a finding that the auction sale was held fraudulently and in collusion. There is no evidence on record for substantiating the plea which itself was not taken, it has neither been substantiated.
The Court auction sale is obtained in collusion and by committing fraud. Another contention put forth by the Senior Counsel is that the 1st respondent’s Execution Application in E.A.No.4 of 2011 is not maintainable of law and the same is barred by limitation.
But petitioner being a representative in interest of respondent No.2, if the latter had notice under Rule 66(2) of Order XXI it is not open to the petitioner to contended that it had no notice of the proceeding, learnt about fraud and collusion only on 15.01.2009 and hence it is entitled to file a petition within 60 days of date of knowledge of fraud and collusion. According to the petitioner, it learnt about fraud and collusion in publishing and conducting the sale only on 15.01.2009 and immediately thereafter filed E.A.No.57 of 2009. Yet another argument learned counsel for petit....
But petitioner being a representative in interest of respondent No.2, if the latter had notice under Rule 66(2) of Order 21 it is not open to the petitioner to contended that it had no notice of the proceeding, learnt about fraud and collusion only on 15.01.2009 and hence it is entitled to file a petition within 60 days of date of knowledge of fraud and collusion. Yet another argument learned counsel for petitioner advanced is that this is a case where sale is challenged on the ground of fraud and collusion, fraud vitiated every proceeding including the solemn proceeding of the cou....
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
