LAXMIKANT CHHOTELAL GUPTA AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 211 · Decided: 09-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

,-
)-
LAXMIKANT CHHOTELAL GUPTA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
MAY 9, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] 
B 
.. 
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966-ss. 202 and 203-Auction 
. , 
sale-Dues of the revenue-Recovery of-Properties of the defaulters put to 
auction-Objections to the validity of sale at instance of one party-Non- c 
compliance of the procedures laid down-High Court not addressing itself 
to the vital aspect of the matter despite attention having been drawn thereto--
Directions passed by it was wholly unwarranted-Thus, order of High Court 
set aside and matter directed to be considered afresh by the Competent 
Authority-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0 XL!!/, r l(u). 
D 
Respondent nos. 5 to 7, partners of a firm, ran into arrears in payment 
... 
of sales tax. The properties of the partners were attached. Respondent nos. 5 
y 
to 7 filed writ petition praying for direction to the Authorities to recover the 
dues in respect of the said firm from the appellants alone and not from them. 
High Court directed to put the properties for auction and the auction was held. 
The question arose whether the auction purchaser had deposited the amounts E 
in terms of the said provision. Respondent opposed the handing over of the 
possession. Single Judge of High Court directed that despite the order that 
the auction was to be held strictly in accordance with law, the auction has 
been confirmed by order dated 09.12.2003, and dismissed the petition. 
Application was filed for recalling the said order which was also dismissed F 
and respondent nos. 5 to 7 were directed to hand over possession of the 
property to the Department. In appeal before this Court, High Court was 
directed to consider the effect of non-compliance of the provisions of s. 202 
and 203 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code before confirming the sale. 
The High Court again failed to examine the effect of the provisions of ss. 202 
and 203 of the Code and disposed of all objections including the one for G 
recalling its order dated 9.12.2003 filed by the appellants directing that some 
of the properties which are already put to auction and purchased by auction 
purchasers could not be handed over to them for various objections raised by 
respondent nos. 5 to 7 and directed respondent nos. I to 4 to take further 
211 
H 
212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 6 S.C.R. 
A steps in accordance with law. Hence the present appeal. 
~ 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is unfortunate that the High Court did not address itself 
to a vital aspect of the matter despite its attention having been drawn thereto. 
B It purported to have disposed of all the pending applications directing only 
the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to take further steps in the matter in accordance 
with law, but what those other or further steps in the matter would be, have 
not been spelt out. Such a direction was wholly unwarranted. [Para 13) 
-< 1· 
c 
1.2. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that the dues of the revenue 
should be recovered wherefor properties of the defaulters inter alia can be 
put to auction, but there cannot also be any doubt or dispute that procedures 
laid down therefor must be complied with. This Court has noticed in its Order 
in the Civil Appeal that the High Court resorted to a wrong procedure. The 
issues involved in the writ petition filed by respondent Nos. S to 7 was limited. 
D The High Court unjustly expanded its jurisdiction. [Para 14) (216-F, G) 
1.3. Even when an auction takes place under orders of the competent 
~ 
civil court, the procedures laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure are 
'"( 
required to be complied with. Objections to the validity of sale at the instance 
E of one party or the other are required to be considered and determined. Even 
an appeal lies against such an Order in terms of Order XLIII Rule l(u) of 
the Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 15) (217-AJ 
1.4. Provisions of a statute whether direct<>ry or mandatory 
necessitating strict or substantial compliance are questions which must be 
F determined by the courts. This Court thought that the High Court would do 
so. Presumably the effect and purport of this Court's Order having not been 
brought to its notice, therefore, the matter should be directed to be considered 
afresh by the competent authority. Respondent No. 4 being Assistant 
Commissioner of Sales Tax is the competent authority therefor. Therefore, 
G while setting aside the Order of the Hig
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.