Category Archives: Blog

The Chairman of the Society’s statement to the Court that the Society was willing to transfer up vacant ownership of 3000 square feet of land to the Bank was accepted as an undertaking. Following that, this writ petition was ordered to be considered alongside Writ Petition No.7513/2019. Two intervention applications were submitted in Writ Petition No.2975/2019 throughout the pendency of the proceedings. The Society’s Chairman has since filed Civil Application No.1453/2019, requesting that the ruling dated 29/04/2019 be modified to allow the Society to participate in the auction process, subject to vacating the premises. The Learned Judges A. S. CHANDURKAR AND PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ, pronounced the Judgement on 21.01.2022 in JITENDRA N. JAIN V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.

The Buldhana District Co-operative Agricultural Rural Multipurpose Development Bank Ltd. (for short, the Bank), a Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, owns property measuring approximately 30000 square feet with construction on it located at Plot No.7/2, Chaitanyawadi, Buldhana. The Bank is in Liquidation, and the Liquidator is the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Buldhana. According to an agreement dated October 20, 2012, the Wardhman Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Buldhana (for short, the Society) owns roughly 97.24 square meters of the land.

The agreement will be effective from August 1, 2011, to July 31, 2014. The sale of land No.7/2 was recommended in the liquidation proceedings. On September 19, 2017, the Bank, through the Liquidator, published a tender notice requesting offers from parties interested in acquiring such land, which measures about 30000 square feet and includes building. For the sale of the land mentioned above, an upset price of Rs.15,01,58,000/- was determined. Because there was no response to the last tender notice, the Liquidator published a new statement on November 6 and 7, 2017. The upset price from the original tender notification was not changed. In the absence of a response to this notice, the Liquidator published a third tender notice on December 16, 2017, proposing to sell the land as mentioned above at the same upset price.

Swastik Shops & Shop Owners Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Buldhana (the Housing Society) expressed interest in purchasing the property mentioned above and bid for Rs.5,51,11,111/-. The Housing Society’s proposal was lower than the upsetting price. The Housing Society had approached this Court in Writ Petition No.8450/2018 since no decision had been made on the abovementioned bid.

The main issue presented in these writ petitions is that, although the upset price for the sale of the property in question was specified to be Rs.15,01,58,000/-, the Housing Society’s offer for an amount of Rs.5,51,11,111/- was accepted. Because the sum provided was far less than the upset price specified, such acceptance was not permitted.

Though the tender announcement specified the upset price to be 15,01,58,000/-, it was later discovered that this upset price was decided based on the inaccurate amount provided in the ready reckoner, according to the Liquidator’s reply. As a result, the Liquidator conducted an independent appraisal of the property, which revealed that the property’s true worth was Rs.5,36,00,000/-. A Government-approved Valuer then evaluated it for Rs.5,43,58,000/-, and the Housing Society’s bid was accepted.

The intervenors’ experienced counsel contends that the applicants, as Bank employees, are interested in recovering money due and owing to them from the Bank, which is in Liquidation. The sale of the property at a lower price than its market worth would unquestionably jeopardize the rights of numerous claimants and creditors.

After reviewing the contentions of both sides, the Learned Judge of the High Court is indisputable that the Bank’s land, which measures 30000 square feet and is under Liquidation, was intended to be sold at public auction. Based on an agreement terminated on July 31, 2014, the Society owns about 97.24 square meters of land. The upset price of the property to be sold was indicated as Rs.15,01,58,000/- in tender notices dated 19/09/2017, 6-7/11/2017, and 16/12/2017. According to the records, the Housing Society was the sole bidder that responded to the tender notice with a quote of Rs.5,51,11,111/-. Given the restriction imposed by Clause 22 that no bid below the upset price may be entered, it is evident that the Housing Society’s proposal was not genuine at all. As a result, no legitimate bid quoting the upset price was received in response to the third tender notice dated 16/12/2017. As a result, the only option was to submit a piece of new tender information.

For the reasons mentioned above, the Learned Judge believes that the order dated 31/01/2019 issued by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State approving the sale of the land in question according to the Housing Society’s bid, as well as the Liquidator’s subsequent communication dated 16/02/2019 accepting the Housing Society’s proposal, are liable to be set aside. The remaining balance was paid in two instalments of Rs.75,00,000 and Rs.4,68,61,111, for a total of Rs.5,51,11,111. The Liquidator holds this sum. While the earnest money must be returned to the Housing Society in line with Clause 17 of the tender contract, the remainder of Rs.5,43,61,111/- must also be repaid.

Click here to view the Judgement

Reviewed by Rangasree

The need of compelling reasons for passing of order of preventive detention against a person already in police or judicial custody or in relation to a criminal case, was considered by the HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR, before a bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Mr. Sanjay Dhar, in the matter of Mohammad Aslam Sheikh vs. Union Territory of J&K and Anr. [WP(Crl.) No.192/2020], on 27.01.22.

By the medium of the present petition, veracity and validity of the order of detention dated 11.11.2020, issued by District Magistrate, Budgam (“Detaining Authority”), has been assailed. In terms of the impugned order, Shri Mohammad Aslam, resident of Gudpora Yarikah Khansahib, Budgam, has been placed under preventive detention and lodged in District Jail, Amphala J&K, Jammu.

Petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind. It has been further contended that the Constitutional and Statutory procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case. It has also been urged that the allegations made against the detenue in the grounds of detention are vague and that the translated version of the documents/grounds of detention has not been provided to the detenue who is a semi-literate person. Petitioner has gone to contend that he has not been informed as to before which authority he had to make a representation. Learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted various grounds while seeking quashment of impugned order but the main ground that has been argued during the course of arguments is that the detenue was already in custody in a case for offences under Sections 18, 20, 23, 38, 39 of ULA(P) Act and Sections 7, 25 Arms Act of Police Station, Khansahib, and there were no compelling reasons for the Detaining Authority to make the impugned detention order and that the Detaining Authority has not spelt out the compelling reasons for detaining the detenue under preventive laws.

The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have disputed the averments made in the petition and stated that they have followed the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act. It is contended that the detenue has been detained only after following due procedure; that the grounds of detention were read over to the detenue; that there has been proper application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority while passing the impugned order and that the detenue has been provided all the material. The learned counsel for the respondents also produced the detention records to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.

The Court, after taking into account the facts, arguments put forth, and placing reliance on several precedents, held that it is a settled position of law that preventive detention orders can be passed even when a person is in police/judicial custody or involved in criminal case but for doing so, compelling reasons are to be recorded. The Detaining Authority is bound to record the compelling reasons as to why the detenue could not be deterred from indulging in subversive activities by resorting to normal law. In the absence of these reasons, the order of detention becomes unsustainable in law. It was noted that Coming to the facts of instant case, in the grounds of detention, after referring to the allegations made in the FIR, it has been mentioned that these activities of the detenue are prejudicial to the security of State that have a potential of destabilizing the country in case the detenue is allowed to remain at large. However, the Detaining Authority has not referred to any other cogent material or furnished any other cogent ground to show that if the detenue is allowed to remain at large, he will be a potential threat to the security of the State. It appears that the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenue is a potential threat to the security of the State is solely based on the allegations made in the aforesaid FIR and no other material. The detenue was already in custody in the aforesaid FIR and there were remote chances of his getting bail as he was involved in the offences to which rigor of S.43D of UAPA is attracted. Thus, there were no compelling reasons for the detaining authority to pass the impugned order of detention. The same, therefore, was held to be not sustainable in law. The impugned detention order was quashed and the petition was allowed, and the Court directed the release of the detenue provided he was not required in connection with any other case.

Click here to read the judgement.

Judgement reviewed by Bhargavi