Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
HAMIDU v. KIRIHAMY et al.
"] ["2023 0 Supreme(Chh) 629"] ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10664"]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. ["2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2346"] ["2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 710"] ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10664"]
Court auctions are a critical mechanism for recovering debts and enforcing decrees, but what happens when allegations of taint the process? Many litigants wonder: can a court sale be challenged on the grounds of in another court? This question arises frequently in under the , SARFAESI auctions, and insolvency matters. While confirmed sales carry significant sanctity, Indian law provides limited avenues for challenge, particularly through . 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 in another court. , empowers any party in a suit or proceeding to prove that a prior judgment, order, or —including one leading to a court sale—was obtained by or , rendering it a without needing a separate suit to set it aside. This applies even to confirmed sales where vitiates the underlying , though success hinges on concrete proof. Courts stress that confirmed sales are not lightly disturbed absent grave vitiation like or . 1952 0 Supreme(Pat) 65 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 ... was obtained by or .' 1952 0 Supreme(Pat) 65
Once confirmed, court or auction sales achieve finality to uphold public confidence. Interference is exceptional, limited to , , or irregularities shocking the process's root. The ought to have taken into consideration that the confirmed auction-sale could have been interfered with only when there was a or . 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1187 Courts refrain from setting aside sales unless perpetration of a /, grave irregularities that go to the root. 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1187 Post-confirmation objections are discouraged except on : Entertaining of objections after the sale is confirmed should not ordinarily be allowed, except on very limited grounds like . 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 840 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1220 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 977
Mere underbidding or post-sale higher offers do not suffice without . 2022 3 Supreme 96 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 977
Section 44 enables in another proceeding: a party can treat a collusive or sale as a without prior reversal. The plaintiff can treat the sale as a on the ground of the of the mortgagee and seek redemption of the mortgage without getting the sale set aside. 1952 0 Supreme(Pat) 65 This extends to cases and distinguishes collusive (no real contest) from fraudulent proceedings. 2013 0 Supreme(Pat) 1731
1980 0 Supreme(Mad) 381
Challenges require specific pleadings under : There is no pleading of or raised in plaint... Provisions of Order 6, Rule 4, CPC that plea of , misrepresentation, and has to specifically set out in pleadings. 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 604 Bald allegations fail; proof of deceit and injury is essential.
Prior opportunities bar claims via or . Dismissed applications prevent fresh suits (). 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 604 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1187
In one case, failure to object pre-confirmation invoked , dismissing a late challenge alleging in publishing the sale. 2010 0 Supreme(Ker) 526 2010 0 Supreme(Ker) 816
For execution sales, requires plus . Judgment-debtors cannot challenge saleable interest lightly. 2006 3 Supreme 474 2000 2 Supreme 2 on court (e.g., sham auction via ) allows , preferably in the executing court. 1956 0 Supreme(Raj) 273
SARFAESI auctions demand strict compliance (Sections 13(2), 13(4); Rules 5-9). Challenges succeed only on or procedural lapses, like non-separate valuation of movables/immovables. One auction was set aside for insinuations and rule violations, remanded for scrutiny. 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2505 2026 0 Supreme(Telangana) 40 Confirmed sales remain shielded post-payment. 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 977 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 840
In a SARFAESI , the court upheld sanctity absent : Public auctions can only be set aside on extreme grounds, such as material irregularities or . 2026 0 Supreme(Telangana) 40
Challenges alleging in sale deeds during suits highlight needs under , to avoid multiplicity. A purchaser claimed between plaintiffs and family; the court allowed as a necessary party. 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 264
In suits, allegations in agreements were dismissed without proof of readiness/willingness. 2023 0 Supreme(Telangana) 670
A court auction delivery order withstood claims where the challenger prolonged proceedings without filing timely applications. 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 488
Limitation under Article 127, , binds applications (60 days), vitiated only by proven knowledge date. 2010 0 Supreme(Ker) 526
To challenge: Plead specifics under ; prove via evidence; invoke Section 44 if collusive; show no waiver. Prefer timely 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
