The Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the auction sale and rejected claims of undervaluation and procedural lapses.
The Supreme Court Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra reviewed an appeal and upheld the dismissal of the appellant’s writ petition, finding no merit in the claim of undervaluation or procedural lapses, emphasizing that the appellant's delayed objections and failure to challenge the valuation at earlier stages undermined its case and that the auction process was conducted transparently without any malice.
The Supreme Court examined the appeal by Ahmednagar District Central Cooperative Bank Limited against the dismissal of its writ petition by the Bombay High Court. The appellant contested the auction sale of immovable property belonging to Mula Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd., asserting undervaluation and insufficient bidder participation. However, the High Court rejected these claims, finding no malice in the sale process, and noted that the purchaser, the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Rahuri, was a statutory body.
The property, initially valued at ₹4.10 crore in 2013, was revalued in 2015 at ₹87.33 lakh by the Sub-Registrar and ₹2.47 crore by open market valuation. Following a High Court directive, an e-auction was conducted, culminating in the respondent offering ₹2.51 crore as the highest bid. Despite being aware of the upset price, the appellant raised objections only after the auction was finalized, alleging undervaluation and procedural lapses. The respondent and State countered that due process was followed, with adequate notice and bidder participation, and dismissed allegations of malfeasance.
The Supreme Court scrutinized the appellant’s delayed response and conduct during the auction process. It observed that the appellant failed to challenge the valuation at earlier stages, despite having the opportunity. The Court also noted that the property was sold through a transparent process, with no evidence of mala fide intent. The appellant’s claim of undervaluation lacked substantive proof, and its negligence in timely action undermined its case.
Ultimately, the Court held that the auction sale did not warrant interference. The appellant’s failure to act promptly and its subsequent challenge lacked merit, particularly given the statutory body’s bona fide purchase. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court’s decision.
Mr. Hansaria, Senior Advocate represented the Appellant.
Mr. Varma, Advocate appeared for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Deshmukh, Advocate appeared for Respondent No. 6.
Subscribers can access the Case, including Case Analysis, Ratio Decidendi, Headnotes, Briefs, Case Research, Cited Case Laws, Case Law Cross-references, and the latest updates on Statutes, Notifications, Circulars, Guidelines, Press Releases and more.
Click on the Citation/Link to access these resources
Comments