HARISHANKAR Vs. SYNDICATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri K. Chandrasekharan, learned senior counsel who led the arguments in E.F.A. No. 21 of 1992 contends that here is a case where an extremely valuable property has been sold for a paltry sum of Rs. 1,01,000 and the auction was conducted with several material irregularities. The inadequate price fetched by itself clearly indicates that prejudice has been caused to the judgment debtors. He points out that O.21 R.66 is not at all complied with. The sale proclamation was not drawn up in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the Code. He also contends that the price obtained is extremely low as is evident from two facts, (1) Long before the sale proclamation was settled in E.A. No. 390 of 1987, when the judgment debtor sought permission to sell the property the court passed an order to the effect that the property shall not be sold for less than Rs. 3,40,000. In spite of the court being aware of this particular fact and its earlier order, the court committed a blunder in fixing the value of the property in the sale proclamation as Rs. 1,00,000. He also contends that R.66(2)(e) and the second proviso to that rule are violated in the present case.

(2.) Sri O. Ramachandran Nambiar appearing for the appellant in C.M.A. No. 110 of 1992 contends that in this case there is no proper proclamation to save the sale and Form No. 29 of Appendix C is not at all complied with. The judicial officer did not even sign the proclamation and we also do not find any evidence of the same being signed by an authorised officer of the court. He also contends that O.21, R.64 casts a duty on the court and this duty has not been discharged. Mr. Nambiar relies upon the decisions in M/s Shalimar Cinema v. Bhasin Film Corporation AIR 1987 SC 2081 and Ambati Narasayya v. M. Subba Rao 1989 Suppl. (2) SCC 694

(3.) On behalf of the decree holder the learned counsel attacks the court auction sale on the ground that the amount of sale price fetched in the court auction is shockingly low and the various irregularities pointed out by the learned counsel who led arguments on behalf of the appellants are present. Here irregularities caused substantial injury to parties concerned.