Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8756 OF 2016

Ludovico Sagrado Goveia                            …Appellant

Versus

Cirila Rosa Maria Pinto and Ors.                  ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R.F.Nariman, J.

1. The present appeal is filed by the successful purchaser at

an auction held in execution of an order dated 5.10.2000 of the

Assistant  Registrar  of  Cooperative  Societies  passed  under

Section 76 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984

[hereinafter referred to as “the 1984 Act”]. The brief facts of the

present appeal are as follows. 1

Page 2

2. Respondent No. 3 in the High Court, as Proprietor of M/s

Gable Builders, obtained a loan of Rs. 40 lacs from the Mapusa

Branch of the Goa State Cooperative Bank Ltd. The said loan

was sanctioned for the purpose of construction of a Bungalow.

By a deed of mortgage executed on 2.12.1997, the said loan

was secured by mortgaging the western part of the scheduled

property  admeasuring  8000  sq.  mts.  The  principal  borrower

failed to repay the loan installments. That being so, recovery

proceedings were initiated under Sections 74 and 76 of the said

Act by the Bank against respondent No. 3 and two sureties of

the said loan. The Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies,

by an Award dated 5.10.2000, noticed that despite being duly

served  summons  by  Registered  post  A.D.,  all  the  three

opponents  remained  absent.  As  a  result,  an  ex-parte  award

was passed holding all the three opponents jointly and severally

liable to pay the loan dues amounting to Rs 55,04,583/- . It may

be mentioned that interest was payable at 21% compounded

under the said deed of mortgage dated 2.12.1997.

3. A demand notice dated 12.6.2001 was then issued by the

Bank under  Rule  22 of  the Multi  State  Co-operative  Society 2

Page 3

Rules, 1985 against all  the three said persons for a principal

amount of Rs. 60,59,646/- together with further interest at 19%

per annum from 1.4.2001 till the date of payment.

4. In spite of receiving the said notice, the defaulters failed

to  pay  any  amount  towards  bank  dues,  and  the  bank  then

referred the said award for execution to the Sale and Recovery

Officer,  Regional  Office  at  Verem,  Goa.  The  said  Recovery

Officer issued a proclamation notice for sale by public auction of

the mortgaged property by publishing a notice dated 2.1.2002

which  was  duly  published  in  the  Daily  Herald  on  5.1.2002.

Nobody came forward in response to the said notice. Between

January 2002 and February 2007 several proclamation notices

were issued – six in all- to sell the said mortgaged property, but

no bidders came forward to purchase the said property. The

Bank  then  decided  to  sell  the  said  mortgaged  property  by

adopting  the  mode  of  selling  property  by  sealed  tender.

Accordingly,  the  Sale  and  Recovery  Officer  issued  a  tender

notice  dated  18.3.2007  calling  for  sealed  tenders.  The  said

notice was published in a local newspaper “The Tarun Bhagat”

3

Page 4

also of the same date. As per the said tender notice, sealed

quotations were invited from the public on or before 23.3.2007.

5. Two sealed tenders were received on 20.3.2007. A bid of

Rs.  86,00,000/-  received  from  the  appellant  in  the  present

appeal was found to be the highest and accordingly, since the

appellant paid the entire bid amount of Rs. 86,00,000/-, a Sale

Certificate in favour of the appellant was issued on 23.4.2007.

6. Without  availing  of  the  procedure provided by  Rule  37

(13)  of  the  Multi  State  Co-operative  Society  Rules,  2002 by

which  the  defaulter/  borrower  could  approach  the  authorities

with  an  amount  of  5% to  be  paid  to  the  auction  purchaser

together  with  the  full  amount  of  the  outstanding  loan  and

expenses  of  attachment  and  sale  to  the decree  holder, with

interest thereon, within 30 days of confirmation of sale. If this

were done, the said sale could have been set aside. Since the

borrower did not repay at any stage the money borrowed by

him, the borrower filed a Writ  Petition being Writ  Petition No.

325 of 2007 dated 21.6.2007 before the High Court of Bombay

at  Goa  to  quash  both  the  award  and  the  certificate  of  sale

accorded in favour of the Appellant.

4

Page 5

7. By the impugned judgment dated 23.12.2013,  the High

Court has held that the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act,

1984 was repealed by the Multi  State Co-operative Societies

Act, 2002, [hereinafter referred to as “the 2002 Act”] which Act

came into force on 19.8.2002. According to the High Court, the

new Act deems an award passed by the Assistant Registrar as

an award in an arbitration case, which is executable only under

the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to

as  “the  1996  Act”],  and  this  being  the  case,  the  auction

proceedings were set aside by the High Court stating that the

award dated 5.10.2000 would be liable to be executed only in

the manner provided by the 1996 Act. It is the correctness of

this judgment that has to be inquired into in the present appeal.

8. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  has  placed  the

relevant provisions of both the 1984 Act and 2002 Act, and has

relied in particular on Section 126(6) of the 2002 Act to contend

that all legal proceedings that had been initiated under the 1984

Act would continue under that Act.  This being the case, it  is

clear that as execution proceedings were initiated prior to 19th

August, 2002, which is the date of coming into force of the 2002

5

Page 6

Act, the said proceedings would be saved despite repeal of the

1984 Act by the 2002 Act.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondent, argued that, under the 2002 Act, the 1996

Act  alone  would  get  attracted,  and  that,  therefore,  the  High

Court  judgment  was correct.  Learned counsel  further  argued

that even if the impugned judgment were to be set aside, other

points remained to be argued in the Writ  Petition so that the

matter  could  then  be  remanded  back  to  the  High  Court  for

further consideration of these other points.

10. We have heard learned counsel  for  the parties.  Before

dealing with the contentions raised before us it will be important

to set out some of the relevant statutory provisions.  

“Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984

74. (1)  Notwithstanding anything contained in  any other law for the time being in force, if any dispute (other  than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by a multi-State co-operative society against its paid employee or an industrial dispute as defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act,  1947)  touching the constitution,  management or  business  of  a  multi-State  co-operative  society arises- (a)  among members, past members and persons claiming  through  members,  past  members  and deceased members, or  

6

Page 7

(b)    between a member, past member or a person claiming  through  a  member,  past  member  or deceased member and the multi-State  co-operative society, its board or any officer, agent or employee of the multi-State co-operative society or liquidator, past or present , or (c)      between the multi-State co-operative society or its board and any past board, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent or past employee  or  the  nominee,  heirs  or  legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent,  or  deceased  employee  of  the  multi-State co-operative society, or  (d)     between the multi-State co-operative society and  any  other  multi-State  co-operative  society, between  a  multi-State  co-operative  society  and liquidator of another multi-State co-operative society and  the  liquidator  of  another  multi-State co-operative society. Such  dispute  shall  be  referred  to  the  Central Registrar  for  decision  and  no  court  shall  have jurisdiction  to  entertain  any  suit  or  other proceedings in respect of such dispute :       Provided that all disputes in which a national co-operative society is a party shall be referred to the Central Registrar or any officer  empowered to exercise the powers of the Central Registrar.

(2)    For  the  purposes  of  sub-section  (1),  the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the  constitution,  management  or  business  of  a multi-State co-operative society, namely :- (a)    a claim by the multi-State co-operative society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the  nominee,  heirs  or  legal  representatives  of  a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not; (b)       a claim by a surety against  the principal debtor  where  the  multi-State  co-operative  society has  recovered  from  the  surety  any  amount  in

7

Page 8

respect of any debt or demand due to it  from the principal  debtor  as  a  result  of  the  default  of  the principal  debtor, whether  such debt  or  demand is admitted or not;

(3)     If  any  question  arises  whether  a  dispute referred  to  the  Central  Registrar  is  or  is  not  a dispute  touching  the  constitution,  management  or business of  a multi-State co-operative society, the decision thereon of  the Central  Registrar  shall  be final and shall not be called in question in any court.

76.   Settlement of disputes.-   (1)   The Central Registrar may, on receipt of the reference of dispute under section 74,-

    (a)   elect to decide the dispute himself, or  

    (b) transfer it for disposal to any other person who has been invested by the Central Government with powers in that behalf.

(2)   The  Central  Registrar  may  withdraw  any reference  transferred  under  clause  (b)  of sub-section (1)  and decide it  himself  or refer the same  for  decision  to  any  other  person  who  has been  invested  by  the  Central  Government  with powers in that behalf.

(3)   The Central Registrar or any other person to whom a dispute is referred for decision under this section may, pending the decision of  the dispute, make  such  interlocutory  orders  as  he  may  deem necessary in the interest of justice.

85.  Execution of decision, etc. – Every decision or order made under section 30. Section 31, section 73, section 76, section 90, section 92 or section 93 shall, if not carried out.-

8

Page 9

(a)  on a certificate signed by the Central Registrar or any person authorized by him in writing in this behalf, be deemed to be a decree of a civil  court and shall be executed in the same manner as if it were a decree of such court ; or

(b)   where the decision or order provides for the recovery  of  money, be executed according to  the law for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of land revenue :

   Provided that any application for the recovery in such manner of any sum shall be made –  

(i)  To the Collector and shall be accompanied by a certificate signed by the Central Registrar or by any  person  authorized  by  him  in  writing  in  this behalf ; (ii) Within twelve years from the date fixed in the decision or order and if no such date is fixed, from the date of the decision or order, as the case may be; or (c)   be executed by the Central Registrar or any person authorized by him in writing in this behalf, by attachment sale or sale without attachment of any property of the person or a multi-State co-operative society  against  whom  the  decision  or  order  has been made.  

Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002

84. Reference of disputes.-   (1)  Notwithstanding anything  contained  in  any  other  law  for  the  time being in force, if any dispute [other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by a multi-State co-operative society against its paid employee or an industrial dispute as defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)] touching the constitution, management or business of a multi-State co-operative society arises-

9

Page 10

(a)  among members, past members and persons claiming  through  members,  past  members  and deceased members, or

(b)   between  the  member,  past  member  and persons claiming through a member, past member or  deceased  member  and  the  mutli-State co-operative society, its board or any officer, agent or employee of the mutli-State co-operative society or liquidator, past or present, or

(c)   between the multi-State co-operative society or its board and any past board, any officer, agent or employee,  or  any past  officer,  past  agent  or  past employee,  heirs  or  legal  representatives  of  any deceased  officer,  deceased  agent  or  deceased employee of the multi-State co-operative society, or

(d)   between the multi-State co-operative and any other  multi-State  co-operative  society,  between  a multi-State  co-operative  society  and  liquidator  of another  mutli-State  co-operative  society  and  the liquidator  of  another  multi-State  co-operative society.

Such dispute shall be referred to arbitration.

(2)    For  the  purposes  of  sub-section  (1),  the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the  constitution,  management  or  business  of  a multi-State co-operative society, namely:-

(a)  a claim by the multi-State co-operative society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the  nominee,  heirs  or  legal  representatives  of  a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not;

(b)   a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where  the  multi-State  co-operative  society  has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any  debt  or  demand  due  to  it  from  the  principal

10

Page 11

debtor  as  a  result  of  the  default  of  the  principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not ;

(c)    Any  dispute  arising  in  connection  with  the election of any officer of a multi-State co-operative society.

(3)   If a question arises whether a dispute referred to arbitration under this section is or is not a dispute touching the constitution, management or business of  a  multi-State  co-operative  society, the decision thereon of the arbitrator shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.

(4)    Where  a  dispute  has  been  referred  to arbitration under sub-section (1), the same shall be settled or decided by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Registrar.

(5)   Save as otherwise provided under this act, the provisions  of  the  Arbitration  and  Conciliation  Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to all arbitration under this  Act  as  if  the proceedings for  arbitration were referred  for  settlement  or  decision  under  the provisions  of  the  Arbitration  and  Conciliation  Act, 1996.

94. Execution of decisions, etc.-  Every decision or  order  made under  section 39 or  section 40 or section 83 or section 99 or section 101 shall, if not carried out,-

(a)  on a certificate signed by the Central Registrar or any person  authorized by him in writing in this behalf, be deemed to be a decree of a civil  court and shall be executed in the same manner as if it were a decree of such court and such decree shall be executed by the Central Registrar or any person authorized  by  him  in  writing  in  this  behalf,  by attachment and sale or sale without attachment of any  property  of  the  person  of  the  person  or  a

11

Page 12

multi-State co-operative society against  whom the decision or order has been made; or

(b)   where the decision or  order  provides for  the recovery of money, by executed according to law for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of land revenue:

       Provided that any application for the recovery of any sum shall be made in such manner-

(i) To the Collector and shall be accompanied by a certificate signed by the Central Registrar or by any person authorized by him in writing in this behalf;

(ii) Within  twelve  years  from the  date  fixed  in  the decision or  order  and if  no such date is  fixed, from the date of decision or order, as the case may be; or

(c)   be executed by the Central Registrar or any person authorized by him in writing in this behalf, by attachment and sale or sale without attachment of any  property  of  the  person  or  a  multi-State co-operative society against whom the decision or order has been made.

126. Repeal  and  saving. (1)  The  Multi-State Co-operative  Societies  Act,  1984  (51  of  1984)  is hereby repealed.  

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in the General  Clauses Act,  1897 (10 of  1897)  with respect  to  repeals,  any  notification,  rule,  order, requirement,  registration,  certificate,  notice, decision, direction, approval, authorisation, consent, application, request or thing made, issued, given or done under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act,  1984  (51  of  1984)  shall,  if  in  force  at  the commencement of this Act, continue to be in force and have effect as if made, issued, given or done under the corresponding provisions of this Act.  

12

Page 13

(3)  Every multi-State co-operative society, existing immediately before the commencement of this Act which has been registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912) or under any other Act relating to co-operative societies in force, in a y State  or  in  pursuance  of  the  provisions  of  the Multi-unit  Co-operative  Societies  Act,  1942  (6  of 1942) or the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (51 of 1984), shall be deemed to be registered under the corresponding provisions of this Act, and the bye-laws of such society shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, or the rules, continue to be in force until altered or rescinded.  

(4)  All  appointments,  rules  and  orders  made,  all notifications  and  notices  issued  and  all  suits  and other proceedings instituted under any of the Acts referred to in sub-section (1) shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been respectively made, issued and  instituted  under  this  Act,  save  that  an  order made  cancelling  the  registration  of  a  multi-State co-operative  society  shall  be  deemed,  unless  the society has already been finally liquidated, to be an order made under section 86 for its being wound up.

(5) The provisions of this Act shall apply to-  (a) any application for registration of a multi-State co-operative society;  (b) any application for registration of amendment of bye-laws of a multi-State co-operative society,  pending at the commencement of this Act and to the proceedings  consequent  thereon  and  to  any registration granted in pursuance thereof.  

(6) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, any legal proceeding  pending  in  any  court  or  before  the Central  Registrar  or  any  other  authority  at  the

13

Page 14

commencement of this Act shall be continued to be in that court or before the Central Registrar or that authority as if this Act had not been passed.”

11. The first thing that can be noticed is that an adjudication

made under Section 74 and 76 of 1984 Act can be executed in

the  manner  provided  by  Section  85  of  the  1984  Act.  Every

decision or order made under Section 76 can be executed in

three ways. We are concerned with sub-clause (c), in particular,

inasmuch, as on the facts of the present case, the execution

application  was made to  attach  and  sell  the  property  of  the

persons against whom the said order has been made.

12. The scheme of the 2002 Act which replaces the 1984 Act

is a little different. Section 84 of the 2002 Act corresponds to

Section 74 and 76 of the 1984 Act. With this difference – that

disputes that have been referred to arbitration are now to be

settled  or  decided  by  the  Arbitrator  to  be  appointed  by  the

Central  Registrar,  and  the  provisions,  therefore,  of  the  1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act shall apply to such arbitration as

if the proceedings for arbitration were referred for settlement or

decision under the provisions of the said Act.

14

Page 15

13. Thus it can be seen that Section 84 (4) and (5) of the new

Act provide for a different scheme. Equally, Section 94 which

provides for  execution of  certain  decisions and orders  made

under the 2002 Act, mentions various Sections, but Section 84

is conspicuous by its absence. This is obviously for the reason

that the entire proceedings have now to be conducted under

the 1996 Act, including execution of the arbitration Award made

under  the said Act.  The question before the High Court  was

whether proceedings initiated under the old Act could continue

under the said Act.

14.  For this, it is important to advert to Section 126(6), which

has been completely missed by the High Court. By this Section,

any  legal  proceeding  pending  before  any  authority  at  the

commencement  of  the  2002  Act   shall  be  continued  to  be

before that authority as if the 2002 Act had not been passed.

15. The expression “legal proceeding” has been the subject

matter  of  consideration  in  the  Federal  Court  decision  in

Governor-General in Council v. Shiromani Sugar Mills Ltd.,

AIR 1946 FC 16.  In  that  decision Section 171 of  the Indian

15

Page 16

Companies Act, 1913 came up for consideration. That Section

reads as follows: “When  a  winding-up  order  has  been  made  or  a provisional liquidator has been appointed, no suit or other legal proceeding shall  be proceeded with or commenced against the company except by leave of the court, and subject to such terms as the court may impose.”

16. The Federal Court held that the expression “other legal

proceedings” in Section 171 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913

comprises any proceeding initiated by the revenue for recovery

of  tax  dues  under  the  Indian  Income  Tax  Act.  There  is  no

warrant  for  a  narrow  construction  of  such  expression  as

meaning  ‘proceedings  only  in  courts’.  The  Federal  Court

specifically  held  that  initiating  and  putting  into  force  the

collection of arrears of income tax as arrears of land revenue by

authorities  under  the  Income  Tax  Act  would  be  a  “legal

proceeding”.

17. In Binod Mills Co. Ltd. Ujjain (M.P.) v. Suresh Chandra

Mahaveer  Prasad  Mantri,  Bombay,  1987  (3)  SCC 99,  this

Court had to construe Section 5 of the M.P. Sahayata Upkram

(Vishesh  Upbandh)  Adhiniyam,  1978.  Section  5  of  the  said

Adhiniyam reads as follows:

16

Page 17

“5. Suspension  of  suits  or  other  legal proceedings  against  relief  undertakings.—As from  the  date  specified  in  the  notification  under sub-section (1) of Section 3, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted or commenced or, if pending,  shall  be  proceeded  with  against  the industrial undertaking during the period in which it remains  a  relief  undertaking  any  law,  usage, custom, contract, instrument, decree, order, award, settlement  or  other  provisions  whatsoever notwithstanding.”

18. This Court referred in detail to the aforesaid Federal Court

decision,  and  further  went  on  to  hold  that  Section  5  would

include execution petitions that were filed to execute decrees

under the Code of Civil Procedure.

19. It is thus clear that the proceeding in execution initiated

under  Section  85(c)  of  1984  Act  and  pending  before  the

authorities under the said Act prior to 19 th August, 2002, would

continue unhindered by the repeal of the 1984 Act by the 2002

Act.  This being the case, it  is  clear that  the judgment  under

appeal is incorrect, and would have to be set aside.

20. In  the  affidavit  in  reply  filed  by  the  bank  to  the  Writ

Petition, the bank states that it has recovered the entire loan

due  together  with  interest  amounting  to  Rs.85,15,311.75  as

against Rs.86 lakhs received in the auction proceedings, and admits

17

Page 18

that the balance amount of Rs. 74,688.25 over and above the loan

dues are payable to the borrower.  This being the case, and in order

to do complete justice between the parties, it is ordered that the

amount of Rs.74,688.25, together with interest at the rate of 19

per  cent  compounded  per  annum  with  effect  from  1st April,

2007, be paid by the bank to the borrower within a period of

four weeks from the date of pronouncement of this judgment.  

21. Learned counsel for the respondent exhorted us to send

the matter back for a decision on grounds (V) and (VI) of the

Writ Petition which read as follows:  

“(V) The Petitioner further submits that the said Sale Certificate issued by Respondent no.2 pursuant to the  notice  dated  17.3.2007  is  also  void  being passed under the colour of powers, in as much as the Respondent no.2 could not give a go-bye to the mandate of Rule 36 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies  Rules  and  decided  to  hold  the  auction and/  or  open the tenders  in  a  period short  of  15 days, in as much as the said Rule does not provide for relaxation. On the other hand, it mandates that the notice shall be of a period of 15 days.

(VI) The entire action of the Respondent No. 2 is malafide  and  meant  to  favour  of  the  Respondent No.3 in as much as facts stated above make it clear that, that apart, the conduct of the Respondents in not  providing  the   certified  copies  of   the proceedings and keeping the Petitioner in the dark when  she  is  the  owner  of  the  property  and

18

Page 19

surreptitiously seeking to hold the auction giving a go-bye to the statutory requirements makes it clear that  the  Respondent  No.  2  acted  malafide  with respect  and  which  act  vitiates  the  entire proceedings.”

22. We find that after six failed attempts to sell the property

we would not be inclined to accede to this request at this point

in time. We find, on the facts of this case, that at no stage were

the respondent – borrowers ready to pay back the entire money

borrowed by them as far back as in 1997. We also find that a

Writ Petition was filed in 2007 without attempting to set aside

the certificate of sale granted under either Rule 37(13) or (14)

of the Multi State Co-operative Society Rules, 20021.     It is of

1 (13) (a) Where immovable property has been sold by the Sale Officer, any person either owning such property or holding an interest therein by virtue of a title acquired before such sale may apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing with the recovery officer –  

(i) for payment to the purchaser a sum equal to five per cent of the purchase money, and  (ii) for payment to the decree-holder, the amount of arrears specified in the proclamation of sale

as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered together with interest thereon and the expenses of attachment, if any, and sale and other costs due in respect of such amount, less amount which may since the date of such proclamation have been received by the decree-holder.  

(b) If such deposit and application are made within thirty days from the date of sale, the recovery officer shall pass an order setting aside the sale and shall repay to the purchaser, the purchase money so far as it has been deposited, together with five per cent deposited by the applicant: Provided that if more than  one person  have  made deposit  and  application  under  this  sub-rule,  the  application  of  the  first depositor to the officer authorised to set aside the sale, shall be accepted.  

(c) If a person applies under sub-rule (14) to set aside the sale of immovable property, he shall not be entitled to make an application under this sub-rule.  

(14)  (i)  At  any  time within  thirty  days from  the  date  of  sale  of  immovable  property,  the decree-holder or any person entitled to share in a rate able distribution of the assets or whose interests are effected by the sale, may apply to the recovery officer to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or mistake or fraud in publishing or conducting it:  

    Provided that no sale shall  be set aside on the ground of irregularity or fraud unless the recovery  officer  is  satisfied  that  the  applicant  has  sustained  substantial  injury  by  reason  of  such irregularity, mistake or fraud.  

19

Page 20

some significance that  it  is  not  the appellant’s  case that  the

property has been sold at an undervalue.  Also, as has been

pointed out above, the opportunity to have the sale certificate

set aside under Rule 37(13) has not been availed.  Ground V of

the Writ Petition is in reality a ground relatable to Rule 37(14),

as, according to the petitioner, there is a material irregularity in

conducting the sale.   For  the petitioner  to  make out  such a

ground, he has first to apply to the recovery officer within 30

days from the date of sale.  And further, the appellant has to

make out a case that  he has sustained substantial  injury by

reason of such irregularity.  Ground V of the Writ Petition does

not even refer to substantial injury for the reason that is not the

(ii) If the application is allowed, the recovery officer, shall set aside the sale and may direct a fresh one.  

(iii) On the expiration of thirty days from the date of sale if no application to have the sale set aside is made or if such application has been made and rejected, the recovery officer shall make an order confirming the sale:

   Provided  that  if  he  shall  have  reason  to  believe  that  the  sale  ought  to  be  set  aside notwithstanding that no such application has been made or on grounds other than those alleged in any application which has been made and rejected, he may, after recording his reasons in writing, set aside the sale.  

(iv) Whenever the sale of any immovable property is not so confirmed or is set aside, the deposit or the purchase money, as the case may be, shall be returned to the purchaser.  

(v) After the confirmation of any such sale, the recovery officer shall grant a certificate of sale bearing his seal and signature to the purchaser, and such certificate shall state the property sold and the name of the purchaser and it shall be conclusive evidence of the fact of the purchase in all courts and tribunals, where it may be necessary to prove it and no proof of the seal or signature of the recovery officer shall be necessary unless the authority before whom it is produced shall have reason to doubt its genuineness.  

(vi) An order made under this sub-rule shall be final, and shall not be liable to be questioned in any suit or other legal proceedings.  

20

Page 21

appellant’s  case  that  the property  has been sold  at  a  gross

undervalue.  No relief can be given in the Writ Petition so as to

circumvent  the  statutory  provisions  contained  in  Rule  37(13)

and (14).  Ground VI is totally vague and lacking in particulars.

A charge of malafides has to be made out with great clarity and

particularity.  Also, the appellant cannot claim to be in the dark

as every auction sale was publicly advertised in newspapers.

We, therefore, do not accede to counsel’s fervent plea to remit

the rest of the Writ Petition to the High Court for hearing.  

23. We therefore set aside the judgment under appeal as a

whole. There will not be any order as to costs.

..............................J. (DIPAK MISRA)

..............................J. (R.F. NARIMAN)

New Delhi; September 6, 2016

21