Case: Asnew Drums Private Limited &amp; Others Vs. Maharashtra State Finance Corporation &amp; Others

rules had been framed containing the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to be applied for this purpose. The relevant part of sub-section (7) provides that after making an investigation under sub-s. (6) the District Judge may confirm the order of attachment and direct the sale of the attached property. It is under this sub-section that the District Judge confirmed the order of attachment and directed the sale of the attached property.7. Sub-section (8) of S.32 calls for interpretation in this appeal. It provides:"32 (8) An order of attachment or sale of property under this section shall be carried into effect as far as practicable in the manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the attachment or sale of property in execution of a decree as if the Financial Corporation were the decree-holder". The District Judge applying the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure issued various proclamations for sale. The last one year issued in pursuance of the order dated June 30, 1969 of the District Judge directing that the properties be again put up for sale. On July 22, 1969 a fresh proclamation for the fifth time for sale was issued and on August 20, 1969 a public notice was published in the Times of India only. On August 28, 1969, the highest bid for lot No. 1 was Rupees 5,70,000/- and for lot No.2 Rs. 5,40,000/-. The sale was adjourned to September 3, 1969 but no public notice of this adjournment was given."8. The District Judge directed the Financial Corporation to get the evaluation of the property made by some expert. It is stated that M/s. Corona Electricals valued land at Rs.3,04,610/-, building at Rs. 7,41,486/- and machinery at Rs.7,02,000/- - total Rs.17,47,096/-. On September 2, 1969, the appellant company protested against this hurried valuation, but on September 3, 1969 the whole property was sold for Rs. 11,50,000/- to M/s. Kayjay Industries Private Ltd., auction purchasers, who deposited in Court Rs.2,87,500/- being 1/4th of the amount of the bid. On September 12, 1969, the remaining amount was paid by the auction-purchasers and on October 3, 1969 the appellant company applied for setting aside the sale. On January 16, 1970 this application was dismissed. On February 13, 1970 the appellant company filed F. A. No. 152/70 in the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court, as already stated, rejected the appeal on February 16, 1970 on the ground that no appeal lay and also on the ground that there was no merit in the appeal.9. The question which really arises is whether by using the words "in the manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure" in S.32 (8) the Legislature intended to include the provisions in the Code dealing with appeals. There is no doubt that under the Code of Civil Procedure an order setting aside on refusing to set aside a sale in execution of a decree is appealable under O. XLIII R. 1 (1). It is difficult to understand why the scope of the language should be cut down by not including appeals provided under the Code of Civil Procedure within the ambit of the words "in the manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure". "Manner" means method of procedure and to provide for an appeal is to provide for a mode of procedure. The State Financial Corporation lends huge amounts and we cannot for a moment imagine that it was the intention of the Legislature to make the order of sale of property, passed by the District Judge, final and only subject to an appeal to the Supreme Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution.10. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that, wherever the Legislature wanted to provide for an appeal to the High Court, it did so specifically. In this connection he pointed out that sub-s. (9) of S. 32 provided that"any part aggrieved by an order under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) may, within thirty days from the date of the order, appeal to the High Court, and upon such appeal the High Court may, after hearing the parties, pass such orders thereon as it thinks proper".It is true that an appeal has been expressly provided in this case but the reason for this is that if there had been no specific provision in sub-s. (9), no appeal would lie otherwise because it is not provided in sub-s. (5) or sub-section (7) that the District Judge should proceed in the manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure.11. We are not impressed by the argument that the Act confers jurisdiction on the District Judge as persona designata because sub-s. (11) of S. 32 provides that"the functions of a district judge under this section shall be exercisable (a) in a presidency town, where there is a city civil court having jurisdiction by a judge of that court and in the absence of such court, by the High Court; and (b) elsewhere, also by an additional district judge."These provisions clearly show that the District Judge is not a persona designata.12. It was contended that the whole idea of the Act was to have expeditious execution as otherwise large funds of the State Financial Corporation would be locked up during execution proceedings. If this was the intention of the Legislature, it would have expressly provided that no appeal would lie against an order made under sub-s. (8) of S. 32.13. In the result we hold that an appeal lay to the Bombay High Court and the High Court erred in holding that no appeal lay.14. The next question is whether it was a case in which the appeal should have been dismissed summarily. This Court gave special leave against the order of the District Judge, dated January 16, 1970, (Civil Appeal No. 1852 of 1970). Prima facie this Court thought that there was something to be said on the merits of the case. We accordingly hold that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the appeal summarily.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]It is true that an appeal has been expressly provided in this case but the reason for this is that if there had been no specific provision in sub-s. (9), no appeal would lie otherwise because it is not provided in sub-s. (5) or sub-section (7) that the District Judge should proceed in the manner provided in theCode of Civil Procedure.11. We are not impressed by the argument that the Act confers jurisdiction on the District Judge as persona designata because sub-s. (11) of S. 32 providesfunctions of a district judge under this section shall be exercisable (a) in a presidency town, where there is a city civil court having jurisdiction by a judge of that court and in the absence of such court, by the High Court; and (b) elsewhere, also by an additional districtprovisions clearly show that the District Judge is not a persona designata.12. It was contended that the whole idea of the Act was to have expeditious execution as otherwise large funds of the State Financial Corporation would be locked up during execution proceedings. If this was the intention of the Legislature, it would have expressly provided that no appeal would lie against an order made under sub-s. (8) of S. 32.13. In the result we hold that an appeal lay to the Bombay High Court and the High Court erred in holding that no appealfacie this Court thought that there was something to be said on the merits of the case. We accordingly hold that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the appeal summarily