Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL COURT AT GR.BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2107 OF 2018
IN
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.19 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO.7154 OF 2001
Dr.Manjuladevi Mistry and ors ..Plaintiffs/decree holders
V/s
Shashikant Madanlal Mistry (deleted)
1(a)Smt.Subhada S.Mistry and ors ..Defendants/Judgment
debtors
Adv. Sigarla for plaintiff no.2
Adv. Ankit Rajput for defendant nos.1(1), 1(b), 1(c) and 2(b)
CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI M.SALMAN AZMI
DATE: 22/07/2019
ORAL ORDER
1. The Decree holders have tendered this Notice of
Motion interalia prayed for accepting the offer given
by Zina Khan and for giving first preference to parties
to bid and the highest bidder be declared successful
bidder and allow to purchase properties viz.
Hindustan building and Mistry Mansion.
2. At the outset it is necessary to mention that in the
affidavit the Decree holders have not set out any
ground for giving preference to the parties to bid in
respect of propeties viz. Hindustan building and
-- 1 of 6 --
2
Mistry Mansion. Hence, the same needs no
consideration at this stage.
3. The Court receiver submitted report no.106/2019. It
is pointed out that the Predecessor of this Court has
appointed Shriniwas M.Kini and Company for
submitting report in respect of valuation of the suit
property. Accordingly report was submitted to the
Court. The Predecessor of this Court directed the
Court receiver to conduct fresh auction of flat no.C
16, 3rd floor, Malbar apartments, Off. Nepean sea
Road,Mumbai400 006. Accordingly in the meeting
of the parties dated 23/04/2019, the programme of
sale in respect of the above flat was fixed. The
programme of the sale was published vide public
notice dated 06th May, 2019 in English Newspaper
viz. Financial Express, in Gujrati Newspaper viz.
Janmbhumi and in Marathi newspaper Navakal. As
per the programme of the sale, meeting was
conducted on 4th June, 2019 for opening the offer. In
the meeting it is recorded that only one offer was
received from Ms.Zina Khan which is of Rs.3.50
crores. The decree holders/original plaintiff has no
objection for accepting the report in terms of prayer
clause (a).
4. The judgment debtor 1(b) opposed for accepting the
proposal. He would submit that offer given by
Ms.Zina Khan is below the market value of the said
flat. The plaintiff has submitted a valuation report of
-- 2 of 6 --
3
Mr.Ravindra D.Sangvekar, architect, wherein the fair
market value for the said flat is quoted
Rs.8,25,97,900/. The earlier offer was rejected by
order dated 20/12/2018. He would submit that the
property is in prime location and would fetch better
price and prayed for rejecting the offer.
5. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties.
Even the bidder Ms.Zina Khan was also present. She
submitted that she is ready to raise purchase price
further more for Rs.15 lacs i.e. Rs.3.65 crores.
6. I had perused the valuation report of M/s.
Shreeniwas Kini. It appears from the report that the
value of the said flat is fixed at Rs.4,46,60,509/.
Previously the same bidder has quoted the rate of
Rs.3.50 crores. The same was not accepted by the
Predecessor of this Court. On perusal of the report, it
appears that the reserved price is fixed for Rs.5
crores of the flat in question.
7. Ld. Counsel for the decree holder argued that the
decree holder is prevented from enjoying the fruits of
the property. He placed the order of the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court dated 26/07/2017 in Arbitration
Petition No.806 of 2015 wherein the Hon'ble High
Court directed the Court Receiver to go ahead with
the sale of flat which had fetched less value. In that
case the valuer valued the flat to the tune of Rs.29
lacs and the bid was quoted for Rs.28 lacs. The
difference was of Rs.one lac. Here the value of the
-- 3 of 6 --
4
property was quoted by valuer as Rs.4,46,60,509/.
The rate quoted by the proposed purchaser is Rs.3.50
crores and further enhanced the price to Rs.15 lacs,
which is almost less than Rs.1.35 crores of the
reserved price of Rs.5 crores. It is also less than Rs.80
lacs and odd, of the value fixed by valuer. Therefore
with greatest of respect the said order of the Hon'ble
High Court would not be applicable in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of this case.
8. It seems that the price quoted by the bidder is
substantially less than that of the reserved price and
price quoted by the valuer. No doubt the Decree
holders are at their advance age i.e. above 85 years.
They may require funds for their needs but at the
same time there is a big difference in the amount
quoted by the bidder and the value of the property
quoted by the valuer. There is no cogent material to
accept the bid of the only bidder. In this backdrop,
the proposal by the bidder Ms.Zina Khan cannot be
accepted. Hence, it is expedient to pass following
order:
ORDER
Notice of Motion No.2107/2018 is rejected.
Report of Court Receiver bearing No.106/2019 is
disposed of accordingly.
-- 4 of 6 --
5
Decree Holder is directed to pay the cost of report
bearing No.106/2019.
22/07/2019 M.SALMAN AZMI
CITY CIVIL COURT,
GR.MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 22/07/2019
Transcribed on : 26/07/2019
Signed on : 08/08/2019
'CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
08/08/19 at 12.00 noon.
MRS.T.C.KAMBLE
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI M.S.AZMI, CR NO.16
Date of Pronouncement of
judgment/order
22/07/2019
Judgment and order signed by P.O. 08/08/2019
Judgment/order uploaded on 08/08/2019
-- 5 of 6 --
6
-- 6 of 6 --