M/S AL-CAN EXPORT PVT. LTD. versus PRESTIGE H.M. POLYCONTAINERS LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 474 · Decided: 09-07-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 474 : 2024 INSC 500
M/s Al-Can Export Pvt. Ltd.  
v. 
Prestige H.M. Polycontainers Ltd. & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 7254 of 2024)
09 July 2024
[J. B. Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the legality, validity and propriety of the auction 
proceedings conducted by the Tahsildar of the subject property, 
originally owned by the respondent No. 1; whether the provisions of 
Order XXI r. 90 CPC would apply to the writ proceedings u/Art. 226 
of the Constitution; and whether the Additional Commissioner, had 
the jurisdiction to decide the two appeals filed by the respondent 
nos. 1 and 6 respectively u/s. 247 of the Maharashtra Land 
Revenue Code, 1966.
Headnotes†
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 – ss. 194, 195, 212 – 
Auction sale – Matter pertaining to auction proceedings 
conducted by the Tahsildar of the subject property originally 
owned by the respondent No. 1 – Respondent no. 1 mortgaged 
its property in favour of the Bank and obtained loan – Bank 
assigned the debts due and payable to it in favour of the 
respondent no. 6 – Respondent no. 1 was in arrears of land 
revenue and despite issuance of demand notices failed to make 
the payment and as such the property owned by him was put 
to auction under the provisions of the Land Revenue Code – 
Appellant declared the successful bidder and sale certificate 
issued by the Additional Collector in his favour – Legality, 
validity and propriety of the auction proceedings conducted 
by Tahsildar of the subject property originally owned by the 
respondent No. 1:
Held: There was gross violation of the mandatory provisions of 
the Revenue Code as regards the conduct of the auction sale – 
Sale of the property took place before the expiry of the mandatory 
30 days’ notice, thus, the sale was conducted in breach of the 
provisions of s. 194 – Sale certificate was issued on the same day, 
* Author
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
475
M/s Al-Can Export Pvt. Ltd. v. Prestige H.M. Polycontainers Ltd. & Ors.
i.e., on the date of the auction itself, much before the confirmation 
of sale by the Additional Collector, thus, the sale was conducted 
in breach of the provisions of s. 212 – Appellant-purchaser was 
put in possession of the property much before the sale came to 
be confirmed and that too prior to the cheque being realised, thus, 
breach of the provisions of ss. 212 and 208 respectively – Undue 
haste was exhibited by the Tahsildar in completing the sale in 
favour of the appellant – Tahsildar supressing an important fact 
before the Additional Collector as regards the objections received 
by him from IFCI itself indicates that there was some collusion 
between the Tahsildar and the appellant – Said lapses, cannot be 
termed as irregularity – Various illegalities were committed even 
in confirming the sale – If all the illegalities taken note of were to 
be condoned or overlooked, applying the provisions of Ord. XXI 
r. 90 CPC, the same would result in nothing but gross travesty of 
justice – No interference warranted with the impugned judgment 
of the High Court – Having taken the view that the High Court 
committed no error, much less any error of law, the appeals could 
have been dismissed – However, the appellant having running an 
oxygen cylinder manufacturing plant on the suit property, for almost 
15 years after investing a huge amount wherein 200 employees 
are working, it is fit to give one opportunity to the appellant to 
save its industrial unit set up on the subject land – Appellant to 
deposit a sum of Rupees Four Crore Only with the respondent 
no. 6 towards full and final settlement of all liabilities – In case 
of the failure to deposit the amount, the competent authorities to 
take over the possession of the entire unit with the land and put 
the same once again for sale by way of fresh auction process. 
[Paras 56-64, 66-67, 75-78]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. XXI r. 90, ss. 141 and 
9 – Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Ordinary civil jurisdiction 
and extraordinary original jurisdiction – Applicability of the 
provisions of Ord. XXI r. 90 to writ proceedings u/Art. 226: 
Held: Provisions of the CPC do not apply to writ petitions u/Art. 226 
except some of the principles enshrined therein like res judicata, 
delay and laches, addition of parties, matters which have not been 
specifically dealt with by the writ rules framed by the respective 
High Court – As a court of plenary jurisdiction, the writ court whil

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