Smt. Pinky Mundra vs Debts Appellate Recovery ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6529 MP

                                                                                 1                                 MP-246-2021
                                                      The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                                  MP-246-2021
                                                (SMT. PINKY MUNDRA AND OTHERS Vs DEBTS APPELLATE RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT ALLAHBAD
                                                                                  AND OTHERS)

                                            5
                                            Indore, Dated : 08-10-2021
                                                    Shri Hitendra Tripathi, counsel for the petitioners.
                                                    Shri Akshat Agrawal, counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5.

Shri S.K.Sharma, counsel for respondent No.6. Heard on I.A.No. 9060/2021 for stay.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are bonafide auction purchasers. Although borrower succeeded from Debts Recovery Tribunal and from appellate Tribunal, there are certain legal issues which need to be looked into. The Debts Recovery Tribunal has appointed an Advocate Commissioner who is taking coercive action in order to ensure that possession is given to the borrower. The petitioners are ready to argue the matter on any date and till such time the matter is finally heard, the petitioners may be protected in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Ashwin S.Mehta Vs. Custodian, (2006) 2 SCC 385. Reliance is placed on

paragraph Nos.70 and 72, which are reproduced below :

"70. In that view of he matter, evidently, creation of any third-party interest is no longer in dispute nor the same is subject to any order of this Court. In any event, ordinarily, a bona fide purchaser for value in an auction-sale is treated differently than a decree-holder purchasing such properties. In the former event, even if such a decree is set aside, the interest of the bona fide purchaser in an auction-sale is saved. The said decision has been affirmed by this Court in Gurjoginder Singh Vs. Jaswant Kaur.

72. In Padanathil Ruqmini Amma Vs. P.K.Abdulla, this Court making a distinction between the decree-holder auction-purchaser himself and a third party bona fide purchaser in an auction-sale observed : (SCC p.672, para

11)

"The ratio behind this distinction between a Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN SMT MUKTA KOUSHAL Date: 2021.10.08 18:26:09 IST 2 MP-246-2021 sale to a decree holder and a sale to a stranger is that the court, as a matter of policy, will protect honest outsider purchasers at sales held in the execution of its decrees, although the sales may be subsequently set aside, when such purchasers are not parties to the suit. But for such protection, the properties which are sold in court auctions would not fetch a proper price and the decree-holder himself would suffer. The same consideration does not apply when the decree-holder is himself the purchaser and the decree in his favour is set aside. He is a party to the litigation and is very much aware of the vicissitudes of litigation and needs no protection."

Shri Akshat Agrawal opposes the interim application by contending that stay application of the Bank in connected matter has been rejected by this Court way back in the year 2019. However, he submits that he has no objection to argue the matter finally on the next date.

In view of aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court, we deem it proper to protect the auction purchasers till next date of hearing and to place this matter for final hearing at motion stage on the agreed date i.e. 25.10.2021 at 2.30 p.m..

No coercive action be taken against the auction purchasers till next date of hearing.

Counsel for the petitioners undertakes to prepare the synopsis. C.c. today.

                                               (SUJOY PAUL)                                                (ANIL VERMA)
                                                  JUDGE                                                         JUDGE


                                             MK




Signature Not Verified
              VerifiedDigitally
                       Digitally signed by
  SAN                  SMT MUKTA
                       KOUSHAL
                       Date: 2021.10.08
                       18:26:09 IST