LexLUDOVICO SAGRADO GOVEIA versus CIRILA ROSA MARIA PINTO AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
(2016] 6 S.C.R. 440
LUDOVICO SAGRADO GOVEIA
v.
CIRILA ROSA MARIA PINTO AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8756 of2016)
SEPTEMBER 06, 2016
[DIPAK MISRA AND R.F. NARIMAN, JJ.)
Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 - s.126 -
Initiation of recovery proceedings u/ss. 74 and 76 of Multi-State
Co-operative Societies Act,1984 - Award - Dema11d notice by the
Bank - Failure to pay the amounl - Award referred for execution -
Six proclamation notices for sale by public auction - No bidders
came forward - Sale of the mortgaged property by adopti11g the
mode of selling property hy sealed tender - Sale confirmed in favour
of succes4it! bidder (appellant) - Without availing the procedure
provided under d7 (] 3) of Multi-State Co-operative Societies Rules,
2002, borrower filed writ petition seeking quashing of lhe award
and the sale cerlificale - High Courl set aside the award and
consequellt sale certificate on the ground that all'ard was liable to
be executed 011ly in the manner provided under Arbirration and
Conciliatio11 Act, 1996, 1984 Act havi11g bee11 repealed by the 2002
Act - On appeal, held: Proceedings under 1984 Act ll'ere saved by
virtue of s.126(6) of 2002 Act - Thus the execution proceedings
under 1984 Act were valid - Award and the consequent sale
certificate could not have bee11 set aside - Multi-State Co-operatire
Societies Act, 1984 - ss. 74 and 76 - 1\1ulti-State Co-operative Society
Rules, 2002 - n:37{13) and (14).
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 An ad.indication made under Section 74 and 76
of Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act,1984 can be executed
in the manner provided by Section 85 of the 1984 Act. The scheme
of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 which
replaces the 1984 Act is a little different. Section 84 of the
2002 Act corresponds to Section 74 and 76 of the 1984 Act.
With this difference - that disputes that have been referred to
arbitration are now to be settled or decided by the Arbitrator
440
LUDOVICO SAGRADO GOVEIA v. CIRILA ROSA MARJA
PINTO AND ORS.
to be appointed by the Central Registrar, and the provisions,
therefore, of the 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act shall apply
to such arbitration as if the proceedings for arbitration were
referred for settlement or decision under the provisions of the
said Act. [Paras 11, 12) [451-D-F]
1.2 As per Section 126(6) of 2002 Act, any legal proceeding
pending before any authority at the commencement of the 2002
Act
shall be continued to be before that authority- as if the
2002 Act had not been passed. Therefore, the proceeding in
execution initiated under Section 85(c) of 1984 Act and pending
before the authorities under the said Act prior to 19th August,
2002, would continue unhindered by the repeal of the 1984 Act
by the 2002 Act. [Paras 14, 19] [452-B; 453-B-C)
Governor-General in Council v. Shiromani Sugar Mills
Ltd. AIR 1946 FC 16; Binod Mills Co. Ltd. Ujjain
(M.P.) v. Suresh Chandra Mahaveer Prasad Mantri,
Bombay 1987 (3) SCC 99 : 1987 (3) SCR 247 - relied
on.
2. In the present case, at no stage were the respondent -
borrowers ready to pay back the entire money borrowed by them
as far back as in 1997. Writ Petition was filed without attempting
to set aside the certificate of sale granted under either Rule
37(13) or (14) of the Multi-State Co-operative Society Rules,
2002. It is not the appellant's case that the property has been
sold at an undervalue. Also the opportunity to have the sale
certificate set aside under Rule 37(13) has not been availed. For
the petitioner to make out a ground as to irregularity in conducting
the sale, he has first to apply to the recovery officer within 30
days from the date of sale. And further, the appellant has to make
out a case that he has sustained substantial injury by reason of
such irregularity. Ground V of the Writ Petition does not
even refer to substantial injury for the reason that is not the
appellant's case that the property has been sold at a gross
undervalue. No relief can be given in the Writ Petition so as to
circumvent the statutory provisions contained in Rule 37(13)
and (14). Ground VI of the writ petition is totally vague and
lacking in particulars. A charge of nwlajides has to be made out
with great clarity and particularity. Also, the appellant cannot
441
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
442
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 6 S.C.R.
A
claim to be in the dark as every auction sale wExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.