C.W.P No. 13901 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 13901 of 2007 Date of decision : September 11, 2008 M/S Modern Packing Industries & another, ...... Petitioners through Mr.S.S.Salar, Advocate v. Punjab Financial Corporation & others, ...... Respondents through Mr.H.S.Lalli, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Kulwant Kaur, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J Due to the default of the petitioners, who were debtors of the respondent-Corporation, their unit was taken over. Ultimately, the respondent-Corporation advertised the unit for sale on 18.5.2007, as a result of which the said property was sold for Rs.3.90 lacs as against the assessed value at Rs.3.73 lacs. The petitioners have challenged this action alleging that the property was sold at a throughway price and that they were ready to offer double the amount viz. Rs.7.80 lacs and had also deposited an amount of Rs.2 lacs under the orders of this Court with the respondent-Corporation to C.W.P No. 13901 of 2007 ::2:: show their bona fides. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that it was incumbent upon the respondent-Corporation to have informed the petitioners about the offer which it had received so that they could match the same. In support of this argument, counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Gajraj Jain v. State of Bihar reported as (2004) 7 SCC 151. In reply, counsel for the respondent-Corporation has argued that not only was the impending sale of the unit advertised, even a registered letter was addressed to the petitioners to participate in the sale and that the sale having taken place and the property having been handed over to the subsequent purchaser there is no occasion for this Court to set aside the said sale. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that this writ petition must fail. The case of Gajraj Jain (supra) is clearly distinguishable because the Hon'ble Supreme Court therein found, as a matter of fact, that there was a collusion between the lender and the subsequent purchaser and that even the valuation of the property had not been carried out. In the present case, we find that no fault can be found with the process of sale which was carried out by the respondent- Corporation. We put it to counsel for the petitioners whether the petitioners would also suitably compensate the subsequent purchaser since they were ready to pay double the amount to the respondent-Corporation but the learned counsel expressed his inability to make any payment to the subsequent purchaser beyond the amount of money which a fixed deposit in a commercial bank would have earned. In our view; the same is not a fair compensation to the purchaser whose rights stand crystallized. Once it is C.W.P No. 13901 of 2007 ::3:: held that the sale of mortgaged property was carried out in accordance with law, the fact that it did not fetch a higher price would not void the same. However, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to recover the payment of Rs.2 lacs paid under the orders of this Court and direct the respondent-Corporation to refund the same forthwith. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE September 11, 2008 'kk'