TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court orders fresh property sale with specific terms after respondent's payment failure.</h1> <h3>Himadri Coke And Petro Ltd. Versus Soneko Developers (P) Ltd. And Others</h3> Himadri Coke And Petro Ltd. Versus Soneko Developers (P) Ltd. And Others - 2005 (12) SCC 364 Issues:1. Failure to make payment within specified time for property purchase.2. Dispute over sale confirmation in favor of different bidders.3. Challenge under Article 227 regarding confirmation of property sale.4. Disagreement over the highest bid and subsequent offers for property purchase.5. Request for setting aside the sale and re-advertisement for fair participation.Analysis:1. The judgment deals with a case where Respondent 1 failed to make the full payment within the specified time after being the highest bidder for a property. The Tribunal canceled the sale due to non-payment, leading to a series of legal actions and appeals by the parties involved.2. There was a dispute over the confirmation of the property sale in favor of different bidders. Initially, the sale was confirmed in favor of Respondent 1, but subsequent offers and appeals led to a back-and-forth between the parties, including challenges under Article 227 of the Constitution.3. The appellant challenged the order confirming the sale in favor of Respondent 1 under Article 227 before the High Court. The High Court directed the Presiding Officer to reconsider the appellant's application offering a higher amount for the property purchase.4. The appellant raised their offer for the property purchase, claiming to have offered a higher sum than Respondent 1. However, the High Court did not accept the increased offer, leading to further disagreements over the sale price and the legitimacy of the bids.5. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided to set aside the entire sale and ordered a fresh sale through re-advertisement. The Court specified the terms for the new sale, including a minimum acceptable offer of Rs. 1 crore, participation of both parties in bidding, and the return of earnest money to Respondent 1 after defraying the sale costs. The parties were given the option to withdraw any deposited amounts, and the re-advertisement process was to be completed within three weeks to ensure a fair and transparent sale process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
