Held: As per the sub-Rule (4) of r.9, the balance amount of purchase price payable has to be paid by the purchaser to the authorized officer on or before the fifteenth day of the confirmation of sale or such extended period as may be agreed upon in writing between the purchaser and the secured creditor, in any case not extending three months – Even if by liberal construction of the said sub rule, and in view of the orders passed by this Court from time to time in the successive applications filed by the Applicant, it is presumed that the time to deposit the balance amount with interest had stood extended two months after February, 2022, i.e., upto 30.04.2022, no further extension of time as such was granted by the Court nor was it permissible to extend under the said statutory provision contained in r.9 – Apart from the fact that the Applicant had not complied with the orders passed by this Court from time to time in the successive applications filed by it, and more particularly the order dated 12.05.2020 passed in M.A. No.922 of 2020, such an application in the disposed of C.A.No.1902 of 2020, to pursue its strategies and to avoid judicial adjudication in the substantive proceedings, would not be even maintainable – Court in exercise of powers u/Article 142 cannot ignore any substantive statutory provision dealing with the subject – The plenary powers of the Supreme Court u/Article 142 are inherent in nature and are complementary to those powers which are specifically conferred on the court by various statutes – These powers though are of a very wide amplitude to do complete justice between the parties, cannot be used to supplant the substantive law applicable to the case or to the cause under consideration of the court – Instant Miscellaneous Application seeking substantive prayers filed in the disposed of C.A. No.1902 of 2020 being not maintainable is dismissed – Constitution of India – Article 142. [Paras 17-19]
Practice and Procedure – Filing of repeated applications, styled as Miscellaneous Applications, without any legal foundation – Deprecated. [Para 18]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India and Another (1998) 4 SCC 409: [1999] 1 SCR 1121; Supertech Limited vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Others 2021 SCC Online SC 3422 – relied on.
Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Another vs. The State of Vindhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 322: [1954] SCR 1098; State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh and Others AIR 1964 SC 358; Babu Verghese and Others vs. Bar Council of Kerala and Others (1999) 3 SCC 422: [1999] 1 SCR 1121; – referred to.
Taylor vs. Taylor, [L.R.] 1 Ch.426 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.