Whether mortgaged property belonging to joint family can be sold in auction?

 Upon hearing the learned Counsel, we find it quite shocking that against the upset price of Rs. 41,97,550/-, the property has been sold only for Rs. 5,50,000/-. It is an admitted fact that the property belonged to all the family members and the said property was not mortgaged by all, but was mortgaged only by a few family members to secure the debt of Respondent No. 6.

9. The above facts, which are not disputed, clearly reveal irregularities and therefore, the sale in favour of Respondent No. 10 must be set aside, but Respondent No. 10 should also be compensated as he had paid the purchase price of Rs. 5,50,000/- on 16.6.1998 to the Respondent Bank.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 3812 of 2016.

Decided On: 29.03.2016

Olinda Femandes

Vs.

Goa State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Anil R. Dave and A.K. Goel, JJ.

Citation:(2016) 13 SCC298

Print Page

Whether society is estopped from challenging bid amount after acceptance of bid?

For the reasons given above, we have no hesitation to
reject the aforesaid contention. It is re-emphasized that when the
decision was taken to go through the open auction process which
was even otherwise justifiable in order to augment the State
revenue, the appellant-society cannot object to the same and claim

the settlement of ghat in its favour on payment of 15% of the
reserved Jama/settlement amount for the previous years. In fact,
such a contention is not even available to the appellant-society
inasmuch as the decision of the respondents to go through the
auction process was never questioned or challenged by the
appellant-society in any judicial proceedings. On the contrary, it
jumped to the offer of the respondents and accepted the bid but, at
the same time, put the uncalled for condition that it was accepting
the same under protest. Therefore, it cannot now turn around and
make out a case that the bid amount should have been 15% of the
reserved Jama/settlement for the previous years.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1853 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.8448 of 2012)
ALAULI ANCHAL BOAT TRAFFIC COOPERATIVE
SOCIETY LTD., PHULTORA AND ANR. ....Appellants
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ….Respondents
Citation:(2016)6 SCC296
R. BANUMATHI, J.

Print Page

When high court is not justified in interfering with tender process?

We find force in the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for
the appellants. In the first instance, it is to be noted that BEC is
only a recommendatory authority. It is the Competent Authority
which is to ultimately decide as to whether the recommendation of
BEC is to be accepted or not. We are not entering into the
discussion as to whether this Competent Authority is the State
Government or the Municipal Corporation. Fact remains that
there is no approval by either of them. Matter has not even
reached the Competent Authority and no final decision was taken
to accept the bid of respondent No.1 herein. Much before that,
when the BEC was informed that there were only two valid bids
before it when it made its recommendation on September 08,
2010 and as per the Financial Rules there must be three or more
bids to ensure that bidding process becomes competitive, the
BEC realised its mistake and recalled its recommendation dated
September 08, 2010. It cannot be said that such a decision was

unfair, mala fide or based on irrelevant considerations. This,
coupled with the fact that the authority has right to accept or reject
any bid and even to annul the whole bidding process, the High
Court was not justified in interfering with such a decision of the
BEC.
 The High Court has also gone wrong in finding fault with the
decision of the BEC by holding that such a subsequent decision
could not have been taken by the BEC without notice to or in the
absence of the appellant. When the decision making process had
not reached any finality and was still in embryo and there was no
acceptance of the bid of respondent No.1 by the Competent
Authority, no right (much less enforceable right) accrued to
respondent No.1. In such a situation, there was no question of
giving any notice or hearing to respondent No.1.
NON – REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1437 OF 2016
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 9170 OF 2012)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. 
VERSUS
M/S. AL FAHEEM MEETEX PRIVATE LTD. & ANR. 
A.K. SIKRI, J.
Citation:(2016) 4 SCC716

Print Page

Bombay HC: Conditions which can be imposed while releasing seized vehicle on supratnama

Therefore, this application can be allowed by modifying the condition Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) in the impugned order dated 17/6/2014. Insofar as the contention regarding imposing of additional condition is concerned, I do not think that same is necessary as the applicant is a well established finance company which is furnishing an undertaking as well as an indemnity bond, which, therefore, are to be seen to be as good as a Bank guarantee. In the result, the application is allowed and the condition Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) of the order dated 17/6/2014 are hereby deleted and substituted by the following conditions.:

I. The photographs of the seized vehicles taken by the Investigating Officer shall be used as secondary evidence during the trial and, therefore, physical production of the vehicles is dispensed with.

II. The applicant is permitted to sell the vehicles by auction. Before auctioning off the vehicles the applicant shall get the vehicles valued by recognized Government Valuer and the Valuation Report shall be submitted to the trial Court. The details of the auction and auction proceedings shall be submitted to the trial Court.

III. The applicant shall submit an indemnity bond, stating therein, that the applicant shall remit the proceeds from the sale of the vehicles conducted through auction by the applicant to such party as may be directed by the Court. The applicant shall also submit an undertaking within two weeks from the date of the order to the effect that in the event the ownership of vehicles is found to be vested with the accused persons, the sale proceeds of the vehicles shall be deposited by it in the trial Court or shall be paid by it in terms of the order to be passed in that regard by the trial Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Application (Apl.) No. 431 of 2014

Decided On: 06.01.2015

 Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.
Vs.
Respondent: The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:S.B. Shukre, J.

 Citation: 2015ALLMR(Cri)2257

Print Page