GANESH RAMCHANDRA JADHAV versus GOVARDHAN SANSTHA (REGD) WAI PUNE AND OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 491 · Decided: 19-07-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
491
GANESH RAMCHANDRA JADHAV
v.
GOVARDHAN SANSTHA (REGD) WAI PUNE AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No 2748 of 2021)
JULY 19, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 – Tender – In 2015, a
tender notice was issued by the first respondent-registered charitable
trust inviting bids for the development of the property – Bids were
tendered by the appellant and the second respondent – There were
various rounds of litigation between the first respondent, second
respondent, third respondent-Joint Charity Commissioner and the
appellant regarding the bids offered – In 2021, the appellant filed
an intervention application in the writ proceedings, alleging
collusion between the first and second respondent for the sale of
the said property – Appellant offered an amount of Rs. 75 lakhs for
the property – However, appellant did not abide by its offer despite
various opportunities given by the High Court – Thereafter, second
respondent made an offer of Rs.80 lakhs and accordingly, the High
Court directed to complete the transaction with the second
respondent – Before the Supreme Court, the appellant submitted
that he was ready with Rs. 75 lakhs and High Court should have
granted further extension of time – On 18.03.2021, the appellant
was directed to deposit Rs.1 crore in the High Court to his
bona fides and the same was complied with – It was contended by
the second respondent that all along, it was second respondent who
has participated in the process of auction sale and the appellant
had failed to avail of the opportunities which were granted by the
High Court – It was urged that having regard to the principles of
law which have evolved by the judgments of the Supreme Court, it
would be necessary to reject the offer which is now made by the
appellant and to award the property to the second respondent –
Held: At the present time, the appellant has deposited an amount of
Rs. 1 crore before the High Court – To accept the bid of the second
respondent in the amount of Rs. 80 lakhs will deprive the trust of
the opportunity of realising the full market value – The decision of
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 491
491
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
492
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
the High Court to award the sale in favour of the second respondent
would cause serious jeopardy to the interests of the public charitable
trust – The manner in which the second respondent has increased
his offer in driblets (from Rs.50 lakhs to Rs.75 lakhs and thereafter,
to Rs.80 lakhs) leads to a reasonable inference that the true value
of the property was not realized – The appropriate direction would
be to require the third respondent to conduct the auction process by
inviting fresh bids after a proper valuation – Accordingly, directions
issued.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The offer which was made by the second
respondent initially was in the amount of Rs 50 lakhs. It was only
after the appellant had indicated before the High Court that an
amount of Rs 75 lakhs would be offered and failed to do so, that
the second respondent stated before the High Court that he was
willing to match the offer of the appellant and to go beyond it by
an amount of Rs 5 lakhs. At the present time, the appellant has
deposited an amount of Rs 1 crore before the High Court. To
accept the bid of the second respondent in the amount of Rs 80
lakhs will deprive the trust of the opportunity of realising the full
market value. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view
that the submission which has been urged on behalf of the
appellant is worthy of acceptance. This Court is unable to
subscribe to the submission of the second respondent for the
simple reason that the course of dealings would indicate that even
the second respondent has progressively enhanced its offers from
Rs 50 lakhs to Rs 75 lakhs and, thereafter, to Rs 80 lakhs. Before
this Court, now it has been indicated that the second respondent
would be willing to match the offer of the appellant of Rs 1 crore.
There has undoubtedly been a default on the part of the appellant
before the High Court. But the decision of the High Court to
award the sale in favour of the second respondent would cause
serious jeopardy to the interests of the public charitable trust.
The manner in which the second respondent has increased his
offer in driblets leads to a reasonable inference that the true value
of the property has not been realized. Hence, the order of the
High Court to dismiss t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.