WOODS BEACH HOTELS LTD. versus MAPUSA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK OF GOA LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 1085 · Decided: 24-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 4 S.C.R. 1085 
WOODS BEACH HOTELS LTD. 
v 
MAPUSA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE 
BANK OF GOA LTD. & ORS. 
Civil Appeal No. 1830 of 2009 
MARCH 24, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Restitution of property 
A 
B 
- When decree holder himself auction purchaser in court 
auction sale held in execution of decree which is subsequently C 
set aside - Held: Restitution of property can be ordered in 
favour of judgment-debtor and decree-holder auction 
purchaser is bound to return property- If at court auction sale 
in execution of decree, properties are purchased by bona fide 
purchaser who is stranger to court proceedings, sale in his D 
favour is protected and he cannot be asked to restitute property 
to judgment-debtor if decree is set aside - On facts, High Court 
stayed order of Registrar setting aside sale of mortgaged 
property, however, status quo in respect of the property during 
pendency of writ petition not granted - Such order was interim E 
order in nature - Highest bidder in auction held by Bank 
deposited certain sum with bank and third party interest was 
created in the said property - Sale by auction not confirmed, 
entire sale consideration money not deposited by subsequent 
purchaser, no sale deed effected nor possession of property F 
handed over to purchaser by bank - Thus, in the interest of ~, 
justice, parties to maintain status quo as regards the property. 
in the event ]udgmen1-debtor deposits q_rn_ount rn writ 
application pending before High Court and in the-event said 
.. J 
amount is deposited within the time specified, interim order G, 
would continue till the disposal of writ petition and in default of 
making deposit, interim-0rder would stand vacated. 
Padanathil Rugmini Amma vs. P.K. Abdulla 1996 (7) 
sec 668 - referred to. 
1085 
H 
.• 
.\.-
A 
B 
c 
D 
1086 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 
Case law Reference 
1996 (7) sec 668 
Referred to 
Para 9 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
1830 of 2009 
From the Judgement and Order dated 17.03.2008 of 
the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No. 138 of 
2008. 
Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, for the Appellant. 
Rai Rodrigues, Santosh Paul, Arvind Gupta, K.K. Bhat, 
S.N. Bundela, M.J. Paul, Anupam Lal Das, forthe Respondents. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 
1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is filed against an interim order dated 17th 
of March 2008 in Writ Petition No. 138 of 2008 passed by the 
High Court of Bombay at Goa whereby the High Court admitted 
E 
the Writ petition filed by Respondent No.1 and stayed the 
operation of order dated 16th of August 2007 passed by the 
Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Goa. 
3. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this appeal as 
F 
emerging from the records of this case have been succinctly 
referred here for the better understanding and determination of 
the instant appeal. 
The MAPUSA Urban Cooperative Bank of Goa Ltd. 
(Respondent No.1, hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") had 
G extended credit facility of Rs.20 lacs to a proprietary firm 
belonging to one of the Directors of the Woods Beach Hotel 
Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") and an immovable 
property of the appellant namely "Soranto" was allegedly 
mortgaged to cover the aforesaid credit facility. The appellant 
H 
was not the principal borrower. The name andtJoostitution of 
WOODS BEACH HOTELS LTD. V. MAPUSA URBAN 
1087 
CO-OP. BANK OF GOA LTD. & ORS. [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.] 
the appellant company was changed and notified to the bank in A 
1994 but the notice did not mention about the change of 
shareholders. The Bank initiated the proceedings for recovery 
of the due amount before the Asst. Registrar (Respondent No.3) 
of the Multi State Cooperative Societies under section 74 of 
The Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 wherein the B 
appellant was impleaded in the capacity of third party mortgagor. 
The proceeding was initiated in the old name of the appellant 
company and it was alleged by the appellant that no notice was 
served on the appellant. 
4. After obtaining an award from the Assistant Registrar, C 
the Bank filed execution application on 23rd of September 1999 
for a sum of Rs. 52.35 lacs wherein it sought attachment of the 
immovable property of the appellant. After being aware of the 
award, the appellant tried to settle the matter with the Bank and 
paid Rs. 6.63 lacs to the Bank in the

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