Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3593 OF 2016

[ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 3988 OF 2016 ] MANISH KUMAR SUREKA                        Appellant (s)

                               VERSUS WEST BENGAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted.   2. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by  the order dated 02.02.2016, whereby the request made  by the appellant for enlargement of time for deposit  of the amount ordered by the High Court was rejected.    3. By  order  dated  23.12.2015,  the  High  Court  had  passed the following order in respect of the subject  matter :-

".....On going through the impugned order,  

in order to see the Financial Institution  

gets  its  substantial  repayment  fo  the  

dues, we are of the opinion the following  

conditional  order  would  justify  the  

situation :

(i) In  case  the  purchaser  of  the  

appellant  deposits  with  the  Registrar,

Page 2

2

Original Side of this Court a sum of Rs.  

25 Lac as directed by learned Single Judge  

on or before 28.12.2015, the appeal shall  

be listed on 05.01.2016, for hearing.   

(ii) If  the  purchaser  of  the  appellant  

fails  to  deposit  with  the  Registrar,  

Original Side of this Court as indicated  

above the respondent/financial corporation  

is  at  liberty  to  confirm  the  sale  in  

favour of the private respondent who has  

come forward to purchase the property of  

the  appellant at  Rs. 1,88,50,000/-  (Rs.  

one crore eighty eight lac fifty thousand  

only) and has already deposited 10% of the  

same way back in September 2015.   

(iii) If the condition at clause (i) is  

complied  with,  when  the  matter  appears  

before the Court on 05.01.2016 there shall  

be a bidding between the purchaser of the  

appellant  and  the  purchaser  who  has  

already bid in the public auction and no  

third party is entitled to participate in  

the said bid to be held in Court with a  

bench price of Rs. 2 crore.  The highest  

bidder whosoever bids beyond Rs. 2 crore  

shall  be  entitled  to  purchase  the  

property.

Page 3

3

In  case  the  purchaser  of  the  

appellant does not participate in the bid  

the  amount  of  Rs.  25  lac  shall  be  

forfeited and further the sale shall be  

confirmed  in  favour  of  the  present  

purchaser in auction at Rs. 1,88,50,000/-  

(Rs.  one  crore  eighty  eight  lac  fifty  

thousand only).

Supplementary  affidavit  filed  in  

Court today is taken on record."   

4. Thereafter, on 14.01.2016, the High Court passed  the following order :-

"In  terms  of  earlier  order  dated  

23.12.2015 the best price is fixed is Rs.  

2 Crore.  The party for whom Mr. Menon,  

learned Advocate is arguing makes it clear  

that his client is not interested to bid  

beyond  the  price  already  mentioned  i.e.  

Rs.  1,88,54,001/-  (Rs.  one  crore  eighty  

eight lac fifty four thousand and one).  

However, the party brought on behalf of  

the  appellant  is  ready  to  purchase  the  

property at Rs. 2 crore.  It is placed on  

record  that  already  Rs.  25  lac  is  

deposited  as  directed  by  us.   The  

purchaser on behalf of the appellant seeks

Page 4

4

to pay the balance sale consideration by  

way  of  instalment  which  request  is  

rejected  by  us.   However,  the  party  

concerned  is  directed  to  deposit  the  

balance amount of Rs. 1.75 crore within  

two weeks from today with the Registrar,  

Original Side by way of pay order, failing  

which the sale already held in favour of  

the party concerned, for whom Mr. Menon  

represents will be confirmed.  The amount  

of Rs.25 lac deposited on behalf of the  

party  brought  by  the  appellant  will  be  

forfeited in case of failure to deposit  

the full amount in question, as aforesaid.  

The  Registrar,  Original  Side  is  

directed to encash all the pay orders and  

keep it in interest bearing deposit as far  

Rs. 25 lac is concerned.

x x x x x "

5. The appellant did not deposit the said amount of  Rs. 1.75 crores within the time granted by the High  Court.   The  request  for  enlargement  of  time  was  declined.  According to the appellant, since there  was a bereavement in the family, there was a delay of  two days in making the deposit.  On the date when the

Page 5

5

case was called, the appellant had already taken two  Demand Drafts, one dated 29.01.2016 for an amount of  Rs.  85  Lacs  and  another  dated  30.01.2016  for  an  amount  of  Rs.  90  Lacs.   However,  the  High  Court,  having  regard  to  the  spirit  of  the  order  dated  14.01.2016, which we have extracted above, declined  to  grant  time  to  the  appellant  and  the  bid  was  confirmed in favour of the fifth respondent for an  amount of Rs. 1,88,54,001/-.   

6. Thus  aggrieved,  the  appellant  is  before  this  Court.   

7. When the matter came up on mentioning before this  Court  on  05.02.2016,  the  following  order  was  passed :-

"Taken on board.  

Permission  to  file  special  leave  

petition is granted.  

Application  for  impleadment  is  

allowed.  

The  learned  counsel  for  respondent  

Nos.  3  and  4  supports  the  arguments  

advanced  by  Shri  Krishnan  Venugopal,  

learned senior counsel appearing for the  

petitioner.  

Page 6

6

The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  

respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that they  

are  benefited  by  additional  amount  of  

around Rs. 12,00,000/- and the High Court  

in any case having given one week's time  

to  the  additional  respondent-M/s  IRC  

Natural Resources Pvt. Ltd. now impleaded  

and since the petitioner is ready with the  

whole  amount  of  Rs.  2  crore  after  

adjusting  the  amount  already  paid,  the  

interest of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 may  

also be safeguarded.   

Issue notice.   

Dasti, in addition, is permitted.

All  further  steps  pursuant  to  the  

impugned order shall stand stayed.   

Post on 22.02.2016."     8. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing  for the first respondent - Financial Corporation, has  submitted that the appellant cannot have any claim  since the appellant failed to make the payment within  the time permitted by the High Court.   

9. Ms.  Indu  Malhotra,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  fifth  respondent,  has  submitted  that the fifth respondent had already paid the entire

Page 7

7

balance on 05.02.2016 and, therefore, the appeal may  be dismissed.    10. Having regard to the facts, as gathered from the  orders  extracted  above,  it  is  clear  that  despite  rejecting the request for enlargement of time made by  the appellant, the High Court had, in fact, granted  one week's time to the fifth respondent to make the  balance  payment.   Since  the  appellant  was  present  before  the  Court  with  the  Demand  Drafts  when  the  order  was  passed  on  02.02.2016,  we  find  no  justification for the stand taken by the High Court  in  refusing  time  to  the  appellant,  but  granting  another week's time to the fifth respondent to make  the payment.    11. Be  that  as  it  may,  as  can  be  seen  from  the  original order dated 23.12.2015, the idea of the High  Court was to have a bid between the appellant and the  fifth respondent with a base price of Rs. 2 crores.  Having regard to the said view of the High Court, by  our  order  dated  06.04.2016,  we  had  requested  the  parties to be present before this Court to have the  bid to be conducted before this Court.  The fifth  respondent has offered only up to Rs. 2.20 crores,  whereas the appellant has offered Rs. 2.22 crores.  Therefore, we accept the bid made by the appellant.

Page 8

8

The  two  Demand  Drafts,  referred  to  above,  for  an  amount of Rs. 1.75 crores shall be deposited in the  Registry of the High Court within a week from today  and after adjusting the original deposit of Rs. 25  Lacs, the remaining amount of Rs. 22 Lacs shall be  deposited  in  the  Registry  of  the  High  Court  positively on or before 06.05.2016.  The intimation  of deposit shall be given to the first respondent -  Financial Corporation as well.   

12. We  make  it  clear  that  under  no  circumstances,  there shall be an extension of time for depositing  the amount.  In case the appellant fails to deposit  the  balance on  or before  06.05.2016, the  bid will  stand confirmed in favour of the fifth respondent for  an amount of Rs. 2.20 crores and the balance amount  shall be deposited in the High Court on or before  14.05.2016.   

13. In case the appellant deposits the amount and the  bid stands thus confirmed in favour of the appellant,  the  deposit  made  by  the  fifth  respondent  on  14.09.2015, shall be refunded to the fifth respondent  with interest at the rate of 12% within two weeks  from the date of the deposit of the balance by the  appellant.  

Page 9

9

14. The  subsequent  payment  made  by  the  fifth  respondent on 05.02.2016 will also  be refunded to  the fifth respondent with interest as aforesaid.   

15. We also make it clear that in case the appellant  fails to make the deposit with the balance amounts,  as directed hereinabove, the initial deposit of Rs.25  Lacs made by the appellant will stand forfeited.   

16. It is further made clear that within two weeks  from the deposit of the balance amount by either the  appellant  or  by  the  fifth  respondent,  the  first  respondent will take the required further steps for  handing  over  the  property  after  completing  the  formalities, within two weeks of the deposit.      

17. With the above observations and directions, this  appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.      

.......................J.               [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]  New Delhi; April 07, 2016.