TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tiff had filed an appeal against the said order dated 8.5.2013 being FAO(OS) No. 338/2013. It appears that on 26.07.2013, the Division Bench had passed an interim order staying the auction proceedings. The auction, however, was completed by the Court Auctioneer. Subsequently, the Division Bench on 29.08.2013 permitted the appellant (plaintiff No. 1 herein) to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was withdrawn and the interim order was vacated. The counsel for the appellant (plaintiff No.1 herein) had sought permission to record her objections to the auction conducted pursuant to the impugned order. The Division Bench had noted that if such right is available in law, the same can be exercised by the appellant. The present application has been filed based on the said permission which was granted by the Division Bench. 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the defendants submits that he does not wish to file a reply and would like to argue the same without any reply, based on the record of the case. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that a fraud has been played on the Court by the Court Auctioneer and his associates. It is stated that despite being i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rores. Thereafter, DKG Buidlwell Pvt. Ltd. gave a bid of Rs.10.10 crores. Thereafter, Chase Avian Communication Pvt. Ltd. gave its first bid of Rs. 10.27 crores. Hence, it is stated that the Company-DKG Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. had no right to continue further in the auction as its bid in the first round was the lowest. But the Court Auctioneer in collusion with the defendants continued with the auction and DKG Buildwell Pvt.Ltd. continued to give further bids as the Court Auctioneer had some private interest with the DKG Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. 7. It is further contended that in any case, DKG Buildwell Pvt. Ltd was to pay 15% of the bid amount within three days of the auction bid which has not done by it and hence, in any case the bid of DKG Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. is liable to be cancelled. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants has on the other hand contended that the present application is absolutely without any merit and only another attempt by the plaintiff to prolong the litigation. He submits that he has been taking steps for carrying out this auction but the plaintiff has been putting spokes into the process of auction which have been repeatedly struck down by this Court. He....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said date to auction of the property except first floor. It is stated that the entire property including the first floor has to be auctioned. The court on 18.05.2012 has noted with regard to the said application that an absolutely false, frivolous and vexatious application has been moved by plaintiff No. 1. This court again noted that the background of the case would clearly show that the plaintiff is adopting one or the other mean to cause delay in the matter. The application was dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/-. In the meantime, plaintiff No. 1 filed two appeals being FAO (OS) 279/2012 against order dated 17.11.2011 and FAO (OS) 277/2012 against order dated 14.05.2012. After arguing for some time, the plaintiff withdrew the said appeals. On 19.07.2012, the plaintiffs‟ earlier application being IA No. 7512/2012 under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC was taken up for hearing. In this application, an argument was raised that there was serious doubt about the title of defendant No. 1 based on the sale deed which was executed by one Pharma Ventures (International) Pvt. Ltd. It is stated that the original owner Mr. S.P. Kumaria had sold 50% share of the property in favour of Pharma Ve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly allegation in the present application is that Surinder Sahlot is the man who has given directions to prepare the draft on behalf of DKG Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Ankush Pughat represented M/s Green Valley Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Ankush Pughat and Surinder Sahlot are together Directors of another company, namely, Aerofield Flying Academy Pvt. Ltd. The contention has to be rejected. Merely because representatives of two of the bidders are Directors in some third company which has not participated in the proceedings cannot lead to a conclusion that the three companies, which are separately registered under The Companies Act, are essentially one and the same entity. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Vodafone International Holdings BV versus Union of India and Another, (2012) 6 SCC 613, relevant portions of paragraphs 71 and 72 of which read as follows:- "71. In the thirteenth century, Pope Innocent IV espoused the theory of the legal fiction by saying that corporate bodies could not be excommunicated because they only exist in abstract. This enunciation is the foundation of the separate entity principle. 72. The approach of both the corporate and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erely establishing a material irregularity or fraud will not do. The applicant must go further and establish to the satisfaction of the Court that the material irregularity or fraud has resulted in substantial injury to the applicant. Conversely even if the applicant has suffered substantial injury by reason of the sale, this would not be sufficient to set the sale aside unless substantial injury has been occasioned by a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale. (See: Dhirendra Nath Gorai and Suibal Chandra Shaw and Ors. Vs. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh and Ors. (1964) 6 SCC 101; Jaswantlal Natvarlal Thakkar Vs. Sushilaben Manilal Dangarwala & Ors. (1991) Supp. 2 SCC 691; Kadiyala Rama Rao Vs. Gutala Kahna Rao (dead) by & Ors. (2000) 3 SCC 87). 14. A charge of fraud or material irregularity under Order XXI Rule 90 must be specifically made with sufficient particulars. Bald allegations would not do. The facts must be established which could reasonably sustain such a charge. In the case before us, no such particulars have been given by the respondent of the alleged collusion between the other respondents and the auction purchaser. There is also no material irregul....