Cooperative auction sales: failure to deposit the balance purchase money on time renders the sale void and reopenable in revision.

Mandatory deposit requirements governing cooperative auction sales were treated as integral to the validity of the sale: failure to pay the balance purchase money within the prescribed time rendered the auction void, with forfeiture and resale as the statutory consequence. The revisional power under Section 154 was held broad enough to examine legality and propriety of the sale confirmation, and it was not excluded by the availability or non-use of the rule-based remedy to set aside the sale. A challenge to the auction based on the validity of the equitable mortgage was rejected because the award had attained finality and the property remained executable against the judgment-debtor's assets. The sale was therefore set aside and a fresh auction with refund and interest directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor could challenge the validity of the equitable mortgage after the award had attained finality; (ii) whether the revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was maintainable despite the earlier liberty to pursue the remedy under Rule 107(13) and (14) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961; (iii) whether non-deposit of the balance purchase money within the period prescribed under Rule 107(11)(h) rendered the auction sale void and whether that requirement could be waived by the creditor bank; (iv) what consequential order should follow once the auction sale was found void.

Issue (i): Whether the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor could challenge the validity of the equitable mortgage after the award had attained finality.

Analysis: The award passed by the Co-operative Court had become final. The judgment-debtor was liable jointly and severally under the award, and the property in dispute formed part of his assets available for execution. Once the award attained finality and the recovery certificate stood as a decree for execution, the property could be proceeded against for realization of the decretal amount. In that setting, the objection based on want of prior governmental permission for mortgage did not affect the recoverability of the property in execution.

Conclusion: The challenge to the auction on the ground of invalid mortgage was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was maintainable despite the earlier liberty to pursue the remedy under Rule 107(13) and (14) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961.

Analysis: Section 154 confers wide revisional power on the State Government or the Registrar to examine legality, propriety, and regularity of a decision or proceeding of a subordinate officer. The remedies under Rule 107(13) and (14) are applications to set aside a sale on specified grounds and do not curtail the statutory revisional power. The pre-deposit requirement in Section 154(2A) applies to revisions against recovery certificates, not to a revision challenging confirmation of sale. Accordingly, the revision could be entertained notwithstanding non-availment of the rule-based remedy.

Conclusion: The revision was held maintainable under Section 154.

Issue (iii): Whether non-deposit of the balance purchase money within the period prescribed under Rule 107(11)(h) rendered the auction sale void and whether that requirement could be waived by the creditor bank.

Analysis: Rule 107(11)(g) and (h) require deposit of 15 per cent at the time of purchase and payment of the balance within the stipulated period. The rule does not confer discretion to extend time for the balance purchase money. Non-compliance attracts forfeiture and resale, and the provision serves not only the creditor's interest but also the integrity of public auctions. The record did not show any waiver by the judgment-debtor or his legal representatives, and the principle applied in the SARFAESI context was held inapplicable because the cooperative rules did not contain a comparable enabling provision for extension.

Conclusion: The auction sale and its confirmation were held void and null.

Issue (iv): What consequential order should follow once the auction sale was found void.

Analysis: Since the sale was void, the appropriate consequence was restoration of the parties to the extent possible through a fresh auction in accordance with Rule 107(11)(j). The auction purchaser could not be penalized for the procedural fault in the recovery process, and refund with interest was necessary to balance equities. The Court therefore modified the High Court's operative directions and substituted them with an order setting aside the sale, annulling the confirmation, directing a fresh auction, and requiring refund of the deposit with interest.

Conclusion: The High Court's order was modified, and a fresh auction with refund of the purchaser's money was directed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by upholding the finding that the auction sale was void, while altering the consequential relief so that the property would be re-auctioned and the auction purchaser would receive refund with interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Mandatory conditions governing deposit of auction purchase money under the cooperative recovery rules, when not complied with, render the sale a nullity and may be enforced through revisional jurisdiction even if the statutory rule-based sale challenge was not invoked.

---