Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required  ||  NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes  ||  Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction  ||  Delhi High Court: Software Receipts Not Taxable on PE Basis Already Rejected by ITAT  ||  Delhi High Court: Statutory Appeals Cannot Be Denied Due to DRAT Vacancies or Administrative Delays  ||  J&K&L HC: Failure to Frame Limitation Issue Not Fatal; Courts May Examine Limitation Suo Motu  ||  Bombay HC: Preventing Feeding Stray Dogs at Society or Bus Stop is Not 'Wrongful Restraint'  ||  Gujarat HC: Not All Injuries Reduce Earning Capacity; Functional Disability Must Be Assessed  ||  Delhi HC: Framing of Charges is Interlocutory and Not Appealable under Section 21 of NIA Act    

K. Kumara Gupta Vs Sri Markendaya and Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple & Ors. - (Supreme Court) (18 Feb 2022)

Unless there are allegations of fraud or collusion, the highest offer received in the public auction is to be accepted as a fair value

MANU/SC/0213/2022

Contract

Appeal is filed by the auction purchaser against the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has directed the authorities concerned to conduct a re-auction of the entire properties by fixing the upset price higher than what has been fixed earlier.

Once the Appellant was found to be the highest bidder in a public auction in which 45 persons had participated and thereafter when the sale was confirmed in his favour and even the sale deed was executed, unless and until it was found that there was any material irregularity and/or illegality in holding the public auction and/or auction/sale was vitiated by any fraud or collusion, it is not open to set aside the auction or sale in favour of a highest bidder on the basis of some representations made by third parties, who did not even participate in the auction proceedings and did not make any offer. There are no allegations of fraud and/or collusion.

Under normal circumstances, unless there are allegations of fraud and/or collusion and/or cartel and/or any other material irregularity or illegality, the highest offer received in the public auction may be accepted as a fair value. Otherwise, there shall not be any sanctity of a public auction.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have passed an order for re-auction of the property after a period of 23 years from the date of auction/sale to the detriment of the rights of the Appellant who was the successful bidder in the auction sale.

The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is unsustainable and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is restored. Appeals allowed.

Tags : RE-AUCTION   DIRECTION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved