Abhishek Manu Singhvi's Powerful Argument in Supreme Court | Can Legal Heirs Stop Property Auction?

[00:00:00]simpler they will say apply 61 CC in isolation without looking at seven or I'm saying no you can't 61 CCC is part of a section which has seven and that's what even without incorporation part of a holistic context is not just standing stand alone next sentence >> consequently on this count also on the bare text of the act which introduced the 461 CC the debt involved in the present case is per se excluded and the beneficial impact of this cannot be given to JD Namas this judgment your lordship will not is very interesting little known judgment delo deals with his local acts >> and this is put by me as an inexure sat sorry sugata >> page 14 is the judgment please go to my page 14 >> separately I have given the judgment also give the judgment >> very interesting it gives a lot of what it means what are the intent behind this and this vers completely destroys the basic intent behind such acts This may keep on the side. I have reproduced it. See my page 14 >> relevant portion you quoted.

[00:01:05]>> Thus it would be seen that the main provision of section 60 describes interia lands, houses and other buildings belonging to the JD as property which are liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree. The provisor to 60 bracket one however cars out exceptions of properties which are not liable to attachment and sale. My lord has got that. That's the exception I read.

[00:01:28]At this stage itself we may observe that by state amendment applicable to Delhi interelia C double C and triple C have been added which are relevant and shall be taken note of herein after. Nevertheless, even the un amended C in the proviso exempts houses and other buildings with the material and the sites thereof and the land immediately a pertinent there to and necessary for their enjoyment belonging quotations belonging to an agriculturist or a laborer or a domestic servant and occupied by him from attachment and sale in execution of a decree. This is a larger issue. I'm not on the narrow issue. Anyway, he's out.

[00:02:10]He's a JD. He's a representative. That's this is a larger issue. Evidently the parliament granted exemption in C of 61 in respect of the poorer classes of persons comprising of agriculturists and 60 CCC can't be different of 61 Calism can't be different. Amendments to interia 60C and the introduction of double C and triple C etc was extended to applications.

[00:02:37]Then the judgment in par 39 quotes the ex exclusion which I read it quotes section 7 I hope I'm clear on the same section which my lord read with me just now the judgment quote then turn the page then the judgment quotes section two da now come to the judgment parah 75 onwards which is after the quotations the judgment is continued your lordship is page 16 as notice here in above the PRI act was enacted in Punjab in 34 to provide for the relief of indebtedness in Punjab. We have examined the nature and structure. This is the important point larger point.

[00:03:15]Nature and structure are the two words I would earnestly promote before lordships. It defines the expression debt in 71 to exclude from the meaning of the said expression debts incurred for the purpose of trade areas etc. any banking company.

[00:03:34]Then next sentence was important, very important. Next sentence. Thus the expression debt used in the P act is defined in a restricted way. It specifically excludes debts due to banking companies registered under the companies act or the law relating to companies in force. Similarly goes further. The word debtor, debtor defined in 72 is defined narrowly to mean a person who owes the debt of the kind defined in seven and who earns his livelihood merely by mainly by agriculture and is either a land owner or tenant etc or a servant of a land owner. The statement of objects and reasons for enactment of the PI act. Now this is was only found in this judgment.

[00:04:19]We could not find the statement of objects otherwise. It's a very valuable quotation. Just read this one way back in 1934.

[00:04:26]Statement of objects in 29 the total volume of agricultural debt in the Punjab was estimated by the provincial banking inquiry committee at 135 crores.

[00:04:35]A delightful figure. Everybody want to have only this much debt today. Since that date, the sharp fall in the price of agricultural produce has made the pressure of debt on the cultivator even heavier than these figures indicate. And the problem of finding some relief has now become a very acute one. At the end of 1932, the Punjab government appointed a committee of members of the legislative council to consider this problem and to submit proposals for its solic. The report of the committee has been debated in the council and has been for some time under the careful and detailed consideration of the government which has also been studying steps taken in other provinces for the relief of indebtedness. Not these people living in urban areas and being a different class of people. In formulating the legislative measures embodied in this bill, the Punjab government has endeavored to hold the balance fairly between the debtor and the creditor.

[00:05:24]>> You are in position.

[00:05:25]>> No, this litigation continued ladder after ladder after ladder. So they said that's the whole point today is easy to say because notes I won reverse reverse reverse every time. That's the problem.

[00:05:42]>> That's right. That's right. And I paid 11 cr 11 crores today and then there is a difference 19 years I'm now in my 20th year very applying a section which is not meant for them.

[00:05:57]Apparently the heirs the heirs the reps >> they are in possession an 89 year old lady >> not the lady because >> that's all right heirs are in possession yes the man died in '94 we are in 2026 >> about 89 of the property >> not residential house >> panchil house residential house in panchil in Delhi >> residential house >> how many square yards >> 500 square yard sorry >> no it's 500 square yards now kindly come to the bottom of I'm just finishing this part once in formulating the legislative measure embodied in this bill. You'll be ready to receive you know like >> in formulating the legislative measures embodied for this bill the Punjab government has endeavored to hold the balance fairly between the creditors.

[00:06:46]>> We have seen it.

[00:06:47]>> Yes.

[00:06:48]>> One part my lord may not have seen 79.

[00:06:50]Just see 79 because these things are not available now. Luckily this judgment had this quotation. Get the point >> when one looks at the debit because >> the whole argument is is intended it is intended to subserve some other purpose >> purpose and 79 has that 79 >> S itself >> 79 because 81 talks of triple C in the fifth line par 81 and clearly links it to the context of the whole act I'm not reading it to save time you should get the idea it's our section triple C is our section in this case and then last par 82 a for said in our considered view the expression judgment data that is triple C has to be read and understood in the form of meaning ascribe and cannot be understood to mean any judgment but this this judgment goes much further than the other one justice rod in that judgment said you will not give it to reps this says that you can't apply it like this meant for the different class and apply different class that's the point I made >> according to them it's unnecessary to get into a distinction between a legal representative of a judgment data on the one hand and that of a judgment data The section itself is >> itself is one but I would submit that he's in this case he stands by both. So lordship may have to decide a case where true judgment comes and he's not poor etc. That's a different he falls on both he's not a judgment and he's certainly not the class lordship is reading just now. Now last point is E section E which is at page 10.

[00:08:20]There's a third ground on visha or rather the second ground on visha because the other ground was my ground.

[00:08:29]So e now this sounds very mandatory and very serious because no notice it is nothing your lordship has got the man objecting and no prejudice is shown just read with me this is another this is a ambush argument it's a red herring kind bear with me just 5 minutes more in par 29 my lord is reading e.1 in par 29 the imbued order the sale is permitted to be challenged on the basis that notice under order 21 whether or not issued not served when the matter was pending. Mark this. This is a matter pending. In those days, there was only district judge in Morena. And it further holds that after transfer to DRT, the rule two schedule notice was not served because the matter came on transfer. It might not have been served.

[00:09:16]>> What is the relevant date for this?

[00:09:18]>> The transfer date has been the date and pass overall.

[00:09:22]>> Just give the date.

[00:09:23]>> Notice notice under 2122 not issued.

[00:09:26]>> I'll give the date. You're talking about challenge to that right?

[00:09:29]>> Yes.

[00:09:29]>> Challenge to the auction sale is it >> 29 of the informed order >> sale is later >> the sale permitted to be challenged.

[00:09:37]>> The DRT was listed.

[00:09:40]>> So we are talking was pending from before >> the loan suit was decreed in 1991 and he died in 1994.

[00:09:47]>> Yes. We are talking about which which facet of the impuned order sale is permitted to be challenged.

[00:10:01]>> The decree by district judge Morena is 1510 1999 B2 B2. So it got transferred.

[00:10:13]>> When did it get transferred?

[00:10:15]>> On 18th. It got transferred to DRT Jabalpur on 184 2000 lot that keep the date 18th of April 2000 and he tried three times to stop the sale in the auction. He lost every time and the auction got done and I got >> what was the date of that notice itself?

[00:10:40]>> Notice on order 21 >> not given to him.

[00:10:43]>> No is that notice which was not served on him.

[00:10:47]So there's no such notice at all.

[00:10:49]>> There's no notice at all.

[00:10:54]>> No notice under order 21 rule 22 under two of the schedule to the >> I just give the date. I'll just give the date. Number of notices served to him.

[00:11:15]number sir I'll give that particular date in a minute but anyway this will not arise your lordship will note the transfer happens in uh >> 1842 2000 from jab from the suit court to the jabalur drt 184 2000 okay >> 1842 2000 is >> is a transfer from district court to jabalpur which is a relevant >> is it 98?

[00:11:54]>> No, the transfer >> the application will be right before the civil code.

[00:11:59]>> Give us the correct date later. Later give us the correct date.

[00:12:02]>> Now from two dates you should give the decree in decree in Morena is 1591.

[00:12:09]Correct.

[00:12:09]>> Yes.

[00:12:10]>> 151091. That's the decree. May I now >> there after it got transferred in >> May I now request for us from E1 for my learning friend to read this part >> page one >> no E1 your reached email where the submission is here >> I had requested >> from there only >> no may yes >> you can read them just from those dates are coming but read from you got Even in >> we not rush him. Don't worry.

[00:12:43]>> We will not rush him. We have not rushed you also. Fine. You can relax and argue.

[00:12:47]Take all your time.

[00:12:49]>> No issues. Take your time, sir. There's no hurry. In par 29 of the infumed order, the sale is permitted to be challenged interelia on the basis of notice under order 212 whether or not issue issued was not served upon the respondent judgment data when the matter was pending before the district judge uh district judge Morena and it further holds that after transfer to the DRT rule two schedule 2 income tax act lutis applicable to DRT proceedings was also not served. It was because >> execution was taken after 2 years.

[00:13:31]Therefore, 21 to 22 mandates will not that notice will be served on the judgment data and rule 2 schedule 2 of the income tax act it applies to the DRT act. So therefore under DRT act this schedule will not uh calls for the notice that it should be served on the judge. It's a really >> in this regard it is noteworthy that the case was transferred from district judge Morena on 18th April 2000 after the enactment of the DRT act under section 31 of the act which mandatorily transferred all pending proceedings regarding bank loan claims. There was no occasion to issue notice under order 21 through22. Since the matter is to transfer to DRT jouble as regards the alleged absence of IT schedule 2 notice, the following is noteworthy.

[00:14:23]Admittedly, the JD himself filed detailed objections on 24th October 2004 seeking recall of the order passed by the recovery officer DRT dated 20th September 2004 who had directed auction of the property. Consequently, no question of prejudice could arise to the respondent judgment data since he had full notice and exercise the opportunity to vigorously object to the direction of for auction by filing the detailed objection which is found at page 103 where all factual and legal points have taken by respondent judgment data.

[00:15:05]The same section 29 of DRT act which applies the schedule two of income tax act to DRT proceedings and enable the respondent to rely interia to on rule two schedule 2 would also equally apply rule 61 of the same schedule to the same DRD proceedings. Therefore set rule 61 of schedule 2 of income tax act reads as follows. 61 application to set set aside sale of imu property on ground of non-service of notice or irregularity where immovable property has been sold in execution of a certificate by such income tax officer as may be authorized by the principal chief commissioner or chief commissioner or seven principal commissioner or commissioner in this behalf the defaulter or any person whose interests are affected by the sale may at any time within 30 days from the date of the sale apply to the tax recovery officer to set aside the sale of the imu property on the ground that notice was not served on the defaulter to pay the areas as required by this schedule or on the ground of a material irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale.

[00:16:26]Provided that a loose sale shall be set aside on any such ground unless the tax recovery officer is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of non-service or irregularity and an application made by the defaulter under this rule shall be disallowed unless the applicant deposits the amount recoverable from him in execution of the certificate. Now below this application was never moved nor any of these conditions were met by the person. It was only by way of the red petition that they went and in petition this was then e clearly several preconditions apply in respect of rule 61 most and possibly all of which have never been even attempted to be complied by the respondent judgment data.

[00:17:23]Firstly, admittedly, no application is filed by the JD under rule 61 at any point of time. Consequently, the requirement of uh of under rule 61 that such defaulter be applied to the tax recovery officer within 30 days.

[00:17:43]>> Go ahead. Go ahead.

[00:17:44]>> Yes, ma'am. Within 30 days is also not complied with. Similarly, Similarly, the proviso of rule 61 is not complied with which explicitly requires the satisfaction that the Let me consider. Let's Thank you very That F is with regard to 30 days not seen provisor to section C3 is not complied with.

[00:21:09]>> Yes.

[00:21:10]>> Which explicit requires the satisfaction. Similarly, the provisor of rule 61 is not complied with which explicitly requires the satisfaction that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of the non-service or irregularity. In fact, the respondent would admittedly have suffered no prejudice since he exercised his rights to objection and recall.

[00:21:38]Furthermore, the overriding condition of rule 61 is also not satisfied which requires the respondent judgment data to deposit the amount recoverable from him in the execution for all these reasons. The issue of notice is erroneous.

[00:21:58]Then the issue of remand before that if your lordship will have >> no lordship may have this dr how >> you complete this you complete >> yes >> last is last is remand >> the issue of remand the a foret issues summarized by the petitioner are largely jurisdictional and fundamental to the interpretation of the law before the facts of any case are considered. The petitioner strongly disputes the perceive jurisdictional applicability of section 61 CCC on the several grounds summarized above including the legal air argument and bank loan argument. These are fundamental jurisdictional questions.

[00:22:50]The impuged order of the high court has the impuged order of the high court has perpetedly remanded the case back after holding that section 61 CCC applies and only to find out whether the other factual requirements of section 61 CCC are fulfilled by the judgment data, whether the house is owned by and whether the seam is occupied by him. Now these are the below page numbers of the impuged order if you're watching.

[00:23:28]Consequently, unless the impuged order is set aside, these jurisdictional findings would bind any court and would perpetuate the jurisdictional errors as elaborated here and above. Consequently, the impuned order and all its findings deserve to be set aside as erroneous and unsustained.

[00:23:49]Then may Lord Rashi may just have the part where DR8 will not set aside the order of the Milot and held >> that will succeed >> and then the high court first see how the >> you want you want you want us to see the includ of the >> mark 2 mill of the paper.

[00:24:15]>> You can make your you can Now she will have page 230 below volume 230 volume 2.

[00:24:37]Yeah, I'm leaving the factual aspect below only the how they bel has arrived.

[00:24:53]Having considered what you got?

[00:24:56]>> Yes, having considered >> page 213. Having considered that is the second parable. Having considered all the above argument and ruling.

[00:25:09]>> Yes.

[00:25:10]>> Having considered all above arguments and ruling, this appilate tribunal has taken pain in considering the material available on the record of the two appeals to appreciate all the above arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. The discussion part of the impute judgment along with arguments advanced from the side of the parties are now being taken up together for the purpose of analysis. Pointwise, >> you gave the wrong appeal.

[00:25:54]>> One need >> civil appeal. 182 >> 182 182 volume two volume >> your mind >> this is similar page two just the wrong number that's all >> yes >> you got it >> yes now >> yes >> in the impute judgment that internal page number 10 page 194 of the memo of appeal such and such. The learned DRT has observed that no notice was served upon her respondenti moin Singh by the recovery officer before passing the inclusion order dated 20th September 2004 for sale as required under rule two of second schedule of the income tax act 1961 the end income tax certificate proceedings rule 1962. The tribunal below has also in second paragraph of of the same page of judgment is observed that no action was taken by the recovery officer under rule four and 48 of the second schedule of the aforet rules although it was mandatory. learned BRT has also observed that no recovery certificate under section 31A of the recovery of debts due to the banks and financial institutions act was issued by the tribal to the recovery officer for taking up the matter of the recovery to analyze above observations when this tribal goes through the above second schedule of the procedure for the recovery of the income tax act. It is found that the rule four is with regard to the modes of recovery and it does not say about the any notice. Rule 48 is for the notice of the attachment. For this rule, it is admitted check that form uh form number 16 for notice with regard to the attachment of New Delhi property as provided in form 16 was served personally upon Moini Arial Singh. And thus it appears that learned DRT did not take care of the fact that the service of form 16 was admitted for the purpose of attachment as required under rule 48 of second schedule to have clear concept of the above rule of second schedule of the procedure of recovery of tax. It would be better to reproduce here the following provision of section 29 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act 1993.

[00:28:27]section 29 the provision section >> I read then if I'm not sure will yes me lord then uh number two me on the next page is issue of notice me and then after that the wording the last para on the page >> the wording of the above rule two go to indicate that for the recovery of tax when the certificate has been blown ed by the tax recovery officer for the recovery of areas under this schedule.

[00:29:02]The tax recovery officer shall cause to be served upon the defaulter a notice requiring the defaulter to pay the amount specified in the certificate within 15 days from the date of the service of the notice and intimating that in default the steps will be taken to realize the amount under the schedule. In in the opinion of this tribunal, the notice under above rule two is with regard to the tax shown to be due against the defaulter and defaulter is required to pay that amount within 15 days. Such requirement of payment within 15 days cannot be envisaged under the provisions of recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act 93. The learned council for the appellent has rightly pointed out that in the instant case the respondent Shrimati Moini Arial Singh and two others alas of the deceased Hardy Singh was substituted in place of Hardy Singh after the death of defendant judgment data Hardy Singh and no notice under rule two is required to be issued. The question of substitution is not specifically provided under the aforet act of 93 in any of its provisions. However, at the most of the provisions for of substitution provided under under order 22 of code of civil procedure can be resorted to for limited purpose of substitution to continue proceeding and since there is no specific provision in the entire order 22 for issuance of notice to LRs after death of the party judgment data that two when the execution proceedings are going on going on the notice under rule 38 8 for attachment was issued and personally served. This affiliate tribal has not been able to understand the relevance of the of the purpose for which the learner DRT went on to the extent of emphasizing that issuance of not issuance of notice to such LRs under rule two of second schedule. The notice under rule two cannot be equated with the notice required to be sent to the LRs for substitution. Contesting respondent Shrimati Singh is the widow of deceased Hardy Singh and was living with him. Deceased entered into compromise and agreed to sage the of industrial unit and went on depositing amount of compromised decree even after filing the execution on account of default of terms. Therefore, it is not acceptable that she had no knowledge about compromised decree or execution.

[00:31:35]other two LRs of the district has never come forward to contest. It is admitted facts that that the civil suit pending before the district at Morena ended in compromise the terms of which are clearly given in the compromise decree available on report of the memo of appeal as an extra A of appeal number such and sen >> now Lord if any further yes you have seen the logic of the BR yes then Lord kindly had the high court judgment the lord I will read only the relevant questions 29 if you lost it is in volume one page 32 >> you got it now first 29 par 29 >> yes it appears >> it appears that as no notice was served upon the petition Kishna or her son and daughter of the execution by the district judge Morena under order 21 rule 22 CPC by the DRT under rule two of the second schedule of income tax act after the case was received on transfer and on 20th September 2004 X party order of sale of property at Delhi was passed faced with the situation for the very recall of the order dated 20th September 2004 with respect to the sale of the property. Application was filed on 2410, 2004 in which it was mentioned that she has not received any notice so far and was not aware of the proceedings and without appreciating this aspect order dated 20th September 2004 for sale of property was passed. The proceedings have been carried out behind the back of the petitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice. Late Har Singh requests his residential house number such to the petitioner who is exclusive owner of the property. The bank has remained in possession of the property at Banbo. Mortgage property should be put to sale first. In case order dated 20th September 2004 would have been recalled on the aforet application. There was no occasion to proceed with the sale of the property.

[00:34:02]Petitioner prayed for entire mistake on auction and on confirmation of sale as against the rejection of the application by the recovery officer on 10th October 2006. She had filed an appeal 31 of 2006 before GRT.

[00:34:19]Now Mill lordship kindly come to par 33 before 33 Lord kindly have page 38.

[00:34:34]page 38. Lord 33.

[00:35:00]Please page 43. Page 43.

[00:35:19]You clear.

[00:35:31]Now your lawyer will turn to page 43.

[00:35:36]>> Yes sir. Yes sir.

[00:35:38]>> There are 33 below. Last seven eight lines me. Second line from the top. The case has to be decided.

[00:35:51]Second line from top. Page 43.

[00:35:55]>> Yes sir. The case has to be decided as per law prevailing at Delhi where petitioner is residing and the house in question is situated. Situation of the property is material for that purpose.

[00:36:10]Consequently, in our opinion, exemption could be claimed. No, this is important to be noted belt could be claimed under section 60 1 CCC of CBC on satisfying the conditions enumerated under the aforet provision.

[00:36:35]That is what then Lord kindly 39 page 52 >> same he went on to apply it >> page 39 page 52 below the last era In the facts of the instant, >> in the facts of the instant case, we find that for want of notice, due opportunity was not given to raise the objection with respect to claiming exemption under >> that was that portion where he completely accepted the application of 61 CC. This is notice part of it on on law.

[00:37:27]Where is that portion? Here it says it says >> next line >> in the facts of the instant case we find that is the finding that for want of notice page 52 last >> notice part of it.

[00:37:45]>> Yes ma'am is >> because notice was not given below.

[00:37:50]Therefore this >> next next line >> next line was not given to raise the objection with respect to the claiming exemption under section 61 CCC CBC and the prayer for attachment of the house situated at Delhi was rejected by Morena court and thereafter the case was transmitted it would be in the interest of justice to go into the aforet question before resorting to setting aside of sale which has been made in favor of the auction purchase. purchaser as the auction purchaser has also invested huge amount in purchase of property. Sale cannot be lightly set aside unless and until substantial injury has been caused to the petition.

[00:38:33]Thus, her claim >> requires consideration >> with respect to the exemption under 61 ccc requires consideration along with the effect of bount of duties to her before 20th September 2049.

[00:38:48]Now 59 if you have watched the Chinese then 42 resultantly we allow the repetition the judgment delivered by DRA alabad and decision of presiding officer DRT are hereby set aside case is limited to the >> there is a finding about the actual applicability there doesn't seem to be a discussion as Dr. Sing argued why 60 won't apply where is that argument considered and uh >> best your lordship had >> any some semblance of it you show >> yes that was >> so one one assumes that he it appears that he assumed that it will apply >> yes it was in fact at page 43 below >> consequently in our opinion exemption could be claimed under section 61 PCC on satisfying the conditions enumerated under a foret provision that is the finding >> there's no further conditions >> there is no >> conditions he said therefore remanded >> and therefore only for the conditions >> that means it's a inco sense that he hasn't examined whether the conditions were satisfied or not so he sent it back >> yes >> but then he said the notice aspect and other things he has looked into it >> notice he's talking me only for the reason that they are taking this objection bel for the first time in the writt. So below he says that now since the rut was not issued lord therefore they had no opportunity to raise this point before >> 59 the claim of exemption under 60 with respect to resident shall be inquired into by the preciding officer okay it's open-ended >> within the bounds below of the findings he holds that 61 cc applies >> doesn't >> he does not he applies gives no reason for it and then says now I've held it to be applicable You kindly decide whether on facts 61 cc is satisfied. Now 61 cc's applied for no reason given except one properties in Delhi the earlier part read properties in Delhi therefore by this reasoning all properties in Delhi provided you a judgment data would be covered by 61 C >> that also has not said in passing one sentence line is 40 >> in our opinion the exemption could be claimed could be the language just look at the >> could be claimed on satisfaction of the conditions >> facts is different but Why the which conditions? Because conditions of 61 CC in law first come fact if I'm under 61 CC I may not be a judgment d etc. Why does it apply at all?

[00:41:37]>> That has not >> that well it's one minute more and I'm done. I'm sorry. Your lordship asked about notice. Your lordship asked about notice. Lordship should know there's a wellfounded basis in this case of saying in the additional volume 126 please give that there could have well been a deliberate avoidance of notice 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 notices are sent to him recorded by the court. Please >> and comes back. Not served. Returned.

[00:42:06]Not found. Additional volume 126.

[00:42:10]Additional >> additional volume one filed by the respondent number one to show that he did not receive notice.

[00:42:18]>> In fact, has a reference.

[00:42:21]>> If he filed it, just see the order sheet only two pages 126 to 129.

[00:42:28]I don't think any court could have went over more backwards to issue notice and I'll tell Lord she was a very interesting way these things happen after I finish one of the original side work it's marked but it's marked give a mark other side only two pages are relevant one One more copy >> 126 just I'll go very quickly mark the dates so 19995 this is the district court that is why no subsequent notice was issued because 11 notices went unir the date 1999 so that is issue notice then 23 1195 notice not received just not the date sir Circle the dates only.

[00:43:31]1992 2311.

[00:43:35]It's a quite an astounding effort. Then 17196 JD not present notice received unserved.

[00:43:43]17196.

[00:43:45]23396 notice not received. 10th May 96 received back unserved. Somebody's clearly avoiding 30th.

[00:43:59]>> Bottom line is that the service is not complete.

[00:44:00]>> That's right. Therefore, I am assuming I have argued on that basis.

[00:44:03]>> Service is not complete.

[00:44:04]>> I have argued on the basis I am not done.

[00:44:08]>> Let my learn show a ground that he have taken in this.

[00:44:11]>> No, I am arguing on the basis that he has not served. I have argued it is no prejudice and he was aware >> and he appeared and he objected. But I'm just saying look at the number of attempts made and why not serve nobody knows.

[00:44:26]>> Okay, we will call >> who are you?

[00:44:36]>> Sorry.

[00:44:41]Yes, go ahead.

[00:44:43]I have this person.

[00:44:52]Look here. I've just given a given a two page note on this.

[00:44:59]>> Are you also in appeal?

[00:45:01]>> Yes. Yes. Yes. 190. Our money is start.

[00:45:06]It's public money. Public money is start because auction was done. Money was deposited and we have not received the money.

[00:45:15]>> Where is that money? In the bank.

[00:45:17]>> It's in a fixed deposit.

[00:45:21]I can't the money may not has not come in my hands to utilize >> it's deposit in the file court no money the money is with my is with the bank only but I can't I can't lit fine very I just indicate broadly in 1975 another loan was given to this company mold sterling mold hyal >> sterling mold Mhm.

[00:45:50]>> How many is the money?

[00:45:52]>> The money was given was 3.84 K.

[00:45:57]>> 84 K >> and now with interest tell us with interest how much has it >> what thereafter there thereafter there a compromise decree took place in 1991 where it was agreed that he will give 1.8 cr 1.80 cr and some installments were fixed 7year installments were fixed.8.8 to redeem it. Is it >> what?

[00:46:20]>> To redeem it. Is it?

[00:46:21]>> Yes. It was a money suit. The property was mortgage to the bank. This and it's a it's a registered office. It's not residential. It was a registered office.

[00:46:31]The charge the bank had a charge on this property. Now when the compromise took place 1.80 cr have to be paid. Now installments were fixed. There were defaults in those installments and we went for execution. Now the execution took place on we moved an application on 15th of October 98 just have a look at the first page itself in that note you can find all that in the note. to 1975 is the first date your ship sees then 15th October 91 this is the property man was the registered office of the company so it was registered office today they can keep saying that it's a residential property registered office so far as bank is concerned and and we had a charge on the set property the lordship is 1.80 80 cr in with his installments and 13.5% interest with quarterly less.

[00:47:24]It was also agreed that if he pays 1.50 cr but with that quarterly less interest for the remaining 50 lakhs we will not charge interest and the payment had to be made six monthly but we were so liberal to him we were so liberal to six monthly he had to make two installments in a year. So default took place the Lord will say we'll see the fourth date 15th of September 98 civil court proceedings transferred to BRT in TA number and so would recall when the suits and DRT act came in 93 etc etc that all that happened following Arjal Singh's death moin Arial Singh that is the wife and their children were included as legal are and this is what the court records I will show that to show that they were not represented they were represented in 98 execution proced were transferred from the serial court marina to the DRT travel then your will see 13th September 95 the appalent file an execution application before the learner district judge Madhya Pradesh are you reading all the facts all over again >> no no I'm not reading I'm just reading >> no no I will not read what I will show some relevant facts come to the last bit 10th July 2003 this respondent One man filed an application MA number so and so in OA number so and so before Delhi DRP which is Delhi Interalia praying therein for a direction that the appalent to return the original title deeds pertaining to the property in question. In the set application Arwan admitted that she had knowledge of the appendy of the execution proceedings. This will see at page 359 to 361. Have a look at that m page of my appeal so that we can correlate immediately that she acknowledged lordship has just come to 359 of my appeal. It is civil appeal 190. Please I need to go through >> your lordship will see it starts at 359.

[00:49:44]My Lord will see an application filed by R1 and your office will turn over to page 361.

[00:49:54]That's an application which was filed much before the whole thing started in double. That's very important and we started in Delhi. So that 10th July 2003 application is very important. You will see page 361. Now Tara 4 that suit number 2601 SLO 86 was transferred to DR in the year 96 registered etc etc. Harial Singh defendant expired leaving behind his wife Moi Hardy son so and so daughter so and so were being one of the legal male party in the case Singh bequitted their property so and so the compromise decree was apprised to not she's aware on 10th of July 203 that execution petition is pending >> and not in 365 lordship will not turn to page 365 par 11 in the middle of the paragraph where she view says she gives the execution case number. So she's appearing in the executing court but pretending that she has not been subord 365 you know just about seventh line in the middle the applicant bank has filed an execution petition 365 and the same is pending before the recovery officer DRT Jabalpur as TA number exe execution case number so and so lotine that 154 of 98 PSB versus morton company and others. The above matter is sub before the recovery officer. So she's >> no m taken.

[00:51:37]>> Yes. Lord will not turn over the page and over the page will find that on 20th of September 2004. Now that date is very important.

[00:51:49]Look the DRT orders auctioning of this property and form 70 was issued. know that your log she will find at page 84.

[00:52:00]She participates in that. Have a look at page 84.

[00:52:06]>> No, we take it. Okay. Then >> she just just two lines of >> not at 84. You write >> the opposite I just read two lines for the opposite party. That's the order of the court. The opposite party filed written and oral argument. Shri Kanducha the counter was a plenty while arguing in form with the cons judgment data.

[00:52:24]Right.

[00:52:28]Page 84 in the last just two lines. The judgment data 234 have raised no objection for the sale and auction for the property numbers and those of the did participate. The next date the lordship will see on 24th of October R1 file a recall application which your lordship will see at 88.

[00:52:52]I'll continue.

[00:52:54]Yes. Yes.

[00:52:56]But they will come back 10 minutes to complete it. They call it Yes.