MANISH KUMAR SUREKA Vs. WEST BENGAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND ORS.
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 3593 of 2016, Judgment Date: Apr 07, 2016
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,
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.
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 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 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.
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 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. 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.
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.
For the Latest Updates
Join Now