Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Image
Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces The Supreme Court of India has suggested that the Union Government develop a comprehensive policy addressing the construction of feeding rooms and childcare facilities  in public places. This move aims to ensure that nursing mothers and their children can access basic amenities in a dignified and private manner, reinforcing their fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution. SC Encourages Policy Formulation A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna  and Justice N Kotiswar Singh  highlighted the absence of a structured framework to address this pressing issue. The court advised the Centre to propose a policy that could then be implemented across the states, scheduling the next hearing for December 10, 2024.   The apex court emphasized that before issuing formal directions, it was crucial to understand the Centre’s perspective on implementing the petitioner’s demand for childcare and feedi...
Post a Comment

Supreme Court Judgment on the Auction Sale of Mula Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd. Property: A Detailed Analysis

Supreme Court Judgment on the Auction Sale of Mula Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd. Property: A Detailed Analysis



Introduction

In Civil Appeal No. 8343 of 2024 (arising from SLP(C) No. 16901 of 2024), the Ahmednagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (Appellant) challenged the High Court of Judicature at Bombay’s dismissal of its writ petition regarding the auction sale of property belonging to Mula Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd. (under liquidation). The appellant contested the auction sale based on two major issues: undervaluation of the property and the participation of fewer than three bidders, claiming these issues led to an unjust outcome. 



Background and Facts of the Case


Loan Sanctioning and Default

The appellant had sanctioned a cash credit loan of ₹95 lakh to the Mula Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd. (referred to as "the society"). When the society defaulted on loan repayment, the appellant lodged a dispute with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies in 2001 for recovery of ₹1.05 crore. The dispute resulted in an award in favor of the appellant in 2011, granting recovery of the amount with an annual interest of 17.5%.


Liquidation of the Society  

In 2005, the society was ordered to be liquidated, and the District Collector of Ahmednagar was appointed as the Liquidator. The liquidation process included the sale of the society’s immovable property. 



Valuation and Auction Sale


Initial Valuation

The property was first valued at ₹4.10 crore in 2012 by a government-approved valuer. Subsequently, the auction sale notice issued in August 2013 set the upset price at ₹4.10 crore. The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Rahuri (Respondent No. 6) expressed interest and submitted a bid but withdrew due to a lack of competing bids.


Subsequent Valuation and Auction

A fresh valuation in 2015 reduced the property’s value to ₹87.33 lakh, while an open market valuation set it at ₹2.47 crore. The auction, held in May 2016, concluded with Respondent No. 6 being the highest bidder at ₹2.51 crore.



Appellant’s Arguments


The appellant contested the sale on the following grounds:


1. Undervaluation of the Property: The appellant claimed that the property was undervalued in the auction, as its earlier valuation in 2013 was ₹4.10 crore, and properties in the area had appreciated significantly in the following years.

   

2. Lack of Proper Auction Procedure: The appellant argued that only two bidders participated in the auction, violating the requirement for three bidders under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.


3. Delay in Filing the Writ Petition: The appellant delayed its challenge of the auction process, claiming that it was collecting information after learning that the property had been sold.


Respondents' Defense


The respondents, represented by the State of Maharashtra and Respondent No. 6, presented their counterarguments:


- No Procedural Lapse: The State contended that the auction process followed the High Court’s directives, and three bidders had expressed interest, even though only two participated in the final auction.

  

- Fair Auction: Respondent No. 6, being a statutory body, argued that it participated fairly in an open bidding process and won the auction without any undue influence. The property was subsequently developed after the sale.


Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling


Delay in Action by the Appellant

The court noted that the appellant had ample time to challenge the auction process but failed to act promptly. Despite knowing the property’s valuation and upset price from the 2016 auction notice, the appellant did not raise objections until after the auction was completed. This delay weakened the appellant’s case.


Valuation Concerns  

While the court acknowledged the appellant’s concerns about undervaluation, it emphasized that the appellant had been aware of the auction price well before the sale but chose not to act. Moreover, properties seldom depreciate over time, which should have prompted the appellant to intervene earlier if it had legitimate concerns.


No Malafide Conduct  

The court rejected the appellant’s claims of malafide intent in the auction process, affirming that Respondent No. 6 acted within the law. The failure of a third bidder to appear at the auction did not constitute a legal violation, and the auction was conducted fairly.


Conclusion and Outcome


Appeal Dismissed

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment, allowing the sale to Respondent No. 6 to stand. However, the court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice, directing Respondent No. 6 to pay the appellant a sum of ₹1.05 crore (without interest) towards full and final settlement within three months. Failure to do so would result in an interest charge of 6% per annum on the unpaid amount.


Compensation to Other Creditors  

The remaining sum of ₹29.78 lakh, after paying the society's creditors, was to be distributed among other creditors, excluding the appellant. If all creditors had been paid, any surplus would be given to the appellant.

Location: Pune, Maharashtra, India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Supreme Court Reinforces Due Process: Curbing “Bulldozer Justice” with Strict Guidelines

Image
Supreme Court Reinforces Due Process: Curbing “Bulldozer Justice” with Strict Guidelines Background In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has set out guidelines to curb arbitrary demolitions, commonly referred to as "bulldozer justice." This term has emerged from instances where properties of individuals accused of crimes have been demolished without following due legal process. The ruling responds to several petitions highlighting the destruction of residential and commercial properties without prior notice, which, according to petitioners, targets marginalized and minority communities. Key Principles Addressed The Supreme Court’s decision rests on critical constitutional principles, particularly the rule of law, separation of powers, and protection of individual rights . The Court emphasized that no person should be punished without due process and that arbitrary action by the executive undermines citizens’ trust in the justice system. Justice Gavai, in del...
Read more

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores

Image
Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager  Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores  The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Varun Vashista , a former bank manager accused of embezzling over ₹13 crores from a customer’s account while working at ICICI Bank's Vikas Puri branch. The bail was approved by Justice Amit Mahajan on November 12, 2024, after considering the evidence and facts of the case.   Details of the Case The allegations against Vashista stem from his role as a branch manager. The complainant and her husband had entrusted him with managing their investments, amounting to ₹13.5 crores, between 2019 and 2023.   The complainant discovered in January 2024 that nearly ₹12 crores had been **siphoned off** from her account. Key allegations include:   - Creation of Fake Fixed Deposits: The accused reportedly created fraudulent fixed deposit accounts in the complainant’s name.   - Misappropriation of Funds: Funds were tr...
Read more

Equality Before Law

Image
                            Equality Before Law                                                   Introduction The rule of law was firstly introduced by A.V. Dicey in  his book "The Constitution Of England" in which there is rule which only prevails is law in which all are equal. In simple word if any wrong is being done which is not justifiable  by law committed by anyone that may be president, prime minister, or any individual are punishable because there is supremacy of law. Supremacy of law means the government which is power or the people who elected the government all will be treated equally before law.  Article 14 The Indian Constitution 1949, Article 14 guarantees "Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the...
Read more