AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION - SALE OF MORTGAGED PROPERTY - POWERS OF COURT - PROVISIONS OF CPC APPLICABLE - COURT HAS POWER NOT ONLY OF ATTACHMENT, SALE AND CONFIRMATION OF SALE OF MORTGAGED PROPERTY, BUT ALSO TO DELIVER POSSESSION OF PROPERTY TO AUCTION - PURCHASERS - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951, SS. 31, 32(8).
This revision is directed against the order dated December 28, 1984, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvessa (Mr. R. G. Sindhakar), dismissing the application of the petitioners-auction purchasers for delivery of possession of the property which was purchased by them in the auction sale held on June 12, 1984 ( under the order of the learned District Judge) and it has been confirmed on July 23, 1984.
Respondent No. 1. - corporation/decree-holder filed an application u/s 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, against respondent No. 2, partnership firm/judgment-debtor for sale of the mortgaged property. The learned District Judge granted the application and sold the property by public auction on June 12, 1984. The petitioners-auction purchasers purchased the said property in the auction for the amount of Rs. 3,00,000. The learned District Judge confirmed the auction sale on July 23, 1984, and issued a sale certificate in favour of the auction purchasers. Thereafter, the auction purchasers applied for delivery Of possession of the property which they had purchased in auction. The learned District Judge issued notices to the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor. The decree-holder, by its reply, stated that it had no objection if the auction purchasers'' application for possession of the property was granted. The judgment-debtor opposed the said application and contended that the property belonged to the National Small Industries Corporation and a receiver had been appointed by the trial court and, therefore, the auction purchasers'' application for possession of the property was liable to be rejected.
The learned District Judge, by his order dated December 28, 1984, held that under the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, he could sell the mortgaged property ; however, he had no power to order delivery of possession of the property sold in the auction. The attention of the learned District Judge was drawn to the provisions of sub-section (8) of section 32 of the said Act, but, in his opinion, those provisions doe not enable him to deliver possession of the property sold as per the provisions of section 31 of the said Act. The procedure to be followed on the application u/s 31 is laid down in section 32. Sub-section (8) of section 32 reads thus :
" 32(8) An order of attachment or sale of property under this section shall be carried into effect as far as practicable in the manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the attachment or sale of property in execution of a decree as if the Financial Corporation were the decree-holder."
The above provisions are very clear regarding the applicability of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the attachment and sale effected by the District Judge under the provisions of section 31. When a District Judge is empowered to attach and sell the property and also to confirm the sale and issue a sale certificate to the auction purchaser, it is inconceivable that the District Judge has no authority under the said Act to deliver possession of the property to the auction purchaser. In the present case, the petitioner-auction purchasers paid the full amount of Rs. 3,00,000 towards the purchase price and sale in their favour was confirmed and sale certificate was issued. Therefore, it follows, as a matter of course, that the auction purchasers are entitled to possession of the property they have purchased and the learned District Judge has the power to deliver possession of the property to the auction purchasers.
Consequently, I find that the learned District Judge was not right in dismissing the application of the petitioners-auction purchasers for delivery of possession of the property.
In the result, the revision succeeds and it is allowed and the rule is made absolute. The order of the learned District Judge dismissing the application of the petitioner-auction purchasers for delivery of possession of the property is set aside. The learned District Judge shall proceed to pass orders in accordance with law indicated above. The necessary order for delivery of possession of the property shall be passed as expeditiously as possible. Respondent No. 2/judgment- debtor shall pay the costs of the petition. The writ shall be issued