{"id":135151,"date":"2007-02-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007"},"modified":"2016-12-17T12:40:27","modified_gmt":"2016-12-17T07:10:27","slug":"commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner’S Report Canara … vs Bombay Alloys And Castings And … on 28 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner’S Report Canara … vs Bombay Alloys And Castings And … on 28 February, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: R Dalvi<\/div>\n
Bench: R Dalvi<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
Roshan Dalvi, J.<\/p>\n
1. This Chamber Summons has been taken out by the  Applicant who has sought to purchase the suit property  initially mortgaged by the Defendant in the suit in favour  of the Plaintiff Bank and later purchased by one K.D.  Shah at an auction held by the Bombay Municipal  Corporation (BMC). The Applicant has applied for  condonation of delay in depositing Rs. 2.75 Crores in the  Office of the Commissioner for taking accounts and for the  Court to confirm the sale in favour of the Applicant or  its nominee.\n<\/p>\n
2. The property has had a chequered history. The  Defendants mortgaged their property (suit property) which  is open land at Bhandup in favour of the Plaintiff -Bank.  The Plaintiff sued on the mortgage in 1974. The  Defendants and the Plaintiffs entered into a consent  decree. The Plaintiffs sought to sell the mortgaged  property in the execution of the said decree. There is  also another mortgage of the said property in favour of  the Plaintiff which is the subject matter of any suit in  the D.R.T. Court.\n<\/p>\n
3. After the mortgage was executed, the Defendants  defaulted in payment of charges and taxes of the B.M.C.  The B.M.C. sold the property to the HUF of Mahendra Popat  Shah (Shah) who purchased the property at the auction and  was issued the Certificate of Sale under the public  auction. He was declared the purchaser of the said  property for a price of Rs. 6.12 lakhs. He made payment of  price on 7.12.1984 and became owner of the property with  effect from 8.12.1984. The Certificate of Sale was issued  in his favour on 2.4.1985. He is deemed to have knowledge  of the 2 mortgages already created by the Defendant in  favour of the Plaintiff. He is taken to have purchased  the said property subject to the encumbrances thereupon  being the said mortgages. The Certificate of Sale does  not specify that the property has been sold subject to  encumbrances, though in law it is so.\n<\/p>\n
4. Shah filed the suit being suit No. 3307 of 1989 for  declaration of his legal right in the said property and  claiming relief against the Plaintiff -Bank in which he  has not obtained any relief and which is still pending.  Shah is therefore bound to accept the mortgages of the  Bank. He would have an equity of redemption thereupon.\n<\/p>\n
5. Such equity of redemption is the right of the  mortgagor under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property  Act, 1882. However, since the Defendants to the suit who  are the mortgagors have failed to exercise their right to  redeem the mortgage and their property has been sold at an  auction, the said Shah would be entitled to the equity of  redemption. He would, therefore, require to make payment  to the Plaintiff -Bank as the mortgagee to remove the  said encumbrances upon the property purchased by him at  the auction sale which was subject to the said two  encumbrances of the said two mortgages. He has been  declared the owner and purchaser of the said property for  valuable consideration. The property therefore no longer  vests in the Defendants. Their right, title and interest  in the property came to an end upon it being sold at the auction sale by the B.M.C. Nevertheless, the  Plaintiff – Bank remained under the two mortgages in their  favour.\n<\/p>\n
6. Shah not having redeemed the mortgage, the Bank  rightly desired to sell the property in the execution  application taken out by them on 14.11.1994 to execute  the consent decree obtained by them in the  right of the suit as far back on 16.06.1974 and later modified on 3.11.1976. The  Applicant sought to purchase the property thereon. Two  meetings came to be held for bidding in respect of the  suit property.\n<\/p>\n
7. On 10.2.1995, the Applicant made an offer of  Rs. 2.75 Crores for the said property. He was declared the  highest bidder. His bid was accepted by the Court Officer  subject to the deposit being made by him as per the  provisions contained in Order XXI Rule 84 of the C.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
8. Under Order XXI Rule 84 of C.P.C. and Rule 547 of  the High Court Rules, which are Pari Materia, the  Applicant, as the purchaser other than the decree holder  himself, was required to deposit 25% of the amount of his  offer\/purchase price forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
9. On 14.2.1995, the Applicant deposited only Rs. 2  lakhs instead of 25% of Rs. 2.75 Crores with the  Commissioner for Taking Accounts. He was called upon to  deposit further Rs. 66 lakhs within 7 days. Such  directions were passed for his benefit though against the  mandate contained in the aforesaid provision.\n<\/p>\n
10. It may, at once, be mentioned that failure to  deposit as per the mandate of Order XXI Rule 84 rendered  the sale in favour of the Applicant void. Mr. Jamdar  drew by attention to the Case of Manilal Mohanlal Shah v. Sardar Syed Ahmed<\/a>  that it is the  provisions of Order XXI rule 84 are mandatory and that  obligatory on the part of the person declared to be the  purchaser to deposit 25% of the purchase money immediately  in default of which the property is liable to be resold  forthwith. Failure to deposit such amount, constitutes  the sale a “complete nullity” and the fact that the Court  is bound to resell the property shows that the previous  proceedings for sale and “completely wiped out”.  Similarly, in the case of Rosali v. Nellai Small Market  Producers Co-operative Society Ltd. A 1999 Karnataka 167  it has been held that failure to deposit 25% of the  purchase amount by the bidder renders the sale null and  void. The confirmation of such sale is also void and  would not make the auction sale valid.\n<\/p>\n
11. On 21.2.1995, the Applicant wrote to the  Commissioner that it had come to his notice that the said  Shah had filed Suit No. 3307 of 1989 and was claiming to be  in exclusive possession of the property as its owner.\n<\/p>\n
12. On 3.3.1995, the Plaintiff’s Advocate wrote to the  Commissioner that the Applicant had failed to deposit 25%  of the consideration money which was required to be  deposited by them.\n<\/p>\n
13. On 6.3.1995, the Commissioner wrote to the  Applicant that he had deposited only Rs. 2 lakhs at the  time of the auction and called upon him to deposit Rs. 25%  in a week’s time. Though that was the mandate against the  aforesaid provisions, further time was given to the  Applicant by the Commissioner himself.\n<\/p>\n
14. By a telegram dated 5.10.1995, the Applicant  requested two weeks extension of time to complete the  sale. The Applicant did not complete the sale and instead  on 16.1.1996 alleged that the said Shah was in possession  and was confirmed as the owner by the B.M.C. and the  records of the B.m.C. were suitably amended to show such  confirmation and hence he was under an apprehension as to  how he would be restored possession. Consequently, he  sought to withdraw his offer and claimed refund of deposit  of Rs. 2 lakhs.\n<\/p>\n
15. Thereafter, by an order dated 15.10.1996, passed in  this Suit upon the Commissioner’s Report, His Lordship Mr.  Justice S.H. Kapadia (as he then was ) directed that Shah  be removed from possession. In an Appeal filed therefrom  by Shah, the stay of the said order was granted on  4.12.1996. In Appeal the said order was set aside at the  time of hearing on 18.11.2005. Fresh report for the  Confirmation of Sale in favour of the Applicant was called  for.\n<\/p>\n
16. Nevertheless, the Applicant sought return of his  amount of Rs. 2 lakhs and confirmed the withdrawal of his  offer to the Commissioner in his letter dated 2.6.2003.\n<\/p>\n
17. It is, therefore, seen that the over a period of  years, the Applicant has deposited only Rs. 2 lakhs and  no more. He has sought to claim possession but has not  been able to do so. In 1996 as well as in 2003, he  withdrew his offer and claimed refund of his deposit on  Rs. 2 lakhs.\n<\/p>\n
18. The Applicant deposited Rs. 2.75 Crores with the  Commissioner only on 16.12.2005. It is the contention of  the Applicant that he was to deposit the amount on  5.12.2005 but he actually sought to deposit the amount on  16.12.2005 and hence, there is a delay of only 6 days.  Even that calculation is incorrect. (That itself would be  the delay of 11 days).\n<\/p>\n
19. However, he has sought to again withdraw his offer  and claimed the refund through his constituted attorney on  21.6.2006 also.\n<\/p>\n
20. Shah has vehemently contested the claim of the  Applicant that there is a delay of only 6 days in  depositing the amount. Mr. Jamdar meticulously brought  before the Court the entire aforesaid chronology. The  Applicant was initially required to deposit 25% of the  amount of his offer on 10.2.1995 when he made the offer  before the Commissioner. He was to deposit the remaining  amount within 90 days thereafter, Hence, instead of  depositing the entire amount by May 1995, he has deposited  it on 16.12.2005. Mr. Jamdar is, therefore, right in  contending that he has committed a delay of 10 years which  cannot and should not be condoned.\n<\/p>\n
21. Mr. Chitnis on behalf of the Applicant instead  argued that he could not have deposited the reminder of  the amount during the pendency of the Appeal and while the  order dated 11.10.1996 of Justice Kapadia remained stayed.  (This begs the fact that he had to deposit the entire  amount well before the date of the order of Justice  Kapadia also). It is his contention that he required  possession of the property and he required said Shah to be  removed, with Police assistance if required, and that  order being stayed, he was not required to deposit the  balance amount of his offer. This contention is also  entirely incorrect. Without depositing the amount, he  could not have expected any equity in his favour. There  would have been no question of granting police assistance  to a party who has not deposited the amount offered by him  to oust a party already in possession and declared owner  in a previous auction sale. The Applicant’s offer was  subject to all encumbrances on the property and Shah was  one such encumbrance alongwith the 2 mortgages of the  Plaintiff Bank. He has, however, not obtained any  directions in this regard at the time of the passing of  the order on the Commissioner’s report. The order in  appeal setting aside the order of Justice Kapadia and  inviting fresh offers came to be passed on 18.11.2005. No  fresh offers have been received but the Applicant’s amount  has been sought to be deposited on 16.12.2005 i.e. after  about 4 weeks from the date of the Appeal order also.\n<\/p>\n
22. The real issue is whether there was delay in  depositing the amount of this offer even prior to the  order of Justice Kapadia. The Applicant sought refund of  the deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs and withdrawal of his offer on  16.1.1996. In 2003, pending the Appeal, he sought similar  withdrawal of the offer and refund of his amount. In fact  he has sought to repeat that exercise on 21.6.2006.\n<\/p>\n
23. It can be seen that there are 4 distinct claims in  this Chamber Summons which call for consideration. They  are of the Plaintiff Bank, the said Shah (previous auction  purchaser) the Applicant (present auction purchaser) and  the Defendants (adjudged insolvents).\n<\/p>\n
24. The claim of the mortgagee Bank is required to be  satisfied in execution of the decree. The satisfaction of  a decree is initially by the mode of paying money under  the decree, either by depositing in Court or by payment to  the Decree Holder out of Court or otherwise. The  provision of Order XXI Rule 1(i) does not specify who is  to pay the money to satisfy the decree. It therefore  contemplates payment by anyone. That stands to reason.  It could be made by the Judgment Debtor or by anyone on  his behalf or by any party interested. Shah has sought to  satisfy the claim of the Plaintiff -Bank by 3 separate  pay orders aggregating to the decretal amount as of date  of approximately Rs. 46.00 lakhs in this suit. Of course,  the Bank has another claim under the other mortgage also  against the Judgment Debtor which is pending in the  D.R.A.T. and for which the Plaintiff would be entitled to  sell the property of the Defendants in execution if Shah  fails to satisfy that decree.\n<\/p>\n
25. Shah has taken the suit property obviously subject  to encumbrances. The only encumbrances are the 2  mortgages of the Plaintiffs Bank. It is, therefore, for  him to claim the equity of redemption by redeeming his  mortgages. That would be done by payment to the mortgagee  Bank. Since two suits are filed by the mortgagee Bank, it  would be by deposit of amount payable to the Decree  Holder\/Plaintiff either in the Court in which the suits  are filed and execution applications are taken out or out  of the Court or even otherwise as per the provisions of  Order XXI Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
26. Subject to such encumbrances, the said Shah is  declared the owner of the property. That declaration is  made for consideration. The consideration is the payment  to the B.M.C. of Rs. 6.12 lakhs in 1985. That represented  the value of the property then. The value has since  escalated considerably. The ownership rights, however,  become crystalized on the date of the sale and upon the  issue of the Sale Certificate. That has been issued on  2.4.1985. Hence, only subject to Shah paying for the  Plaintiff’s claim in the decree in this suit as well as in  the D.R.A.T. suit, he is the absolute owner of the suit  property. He has been put in possession thereof since  1985. The mortgages were created several years before.  He failed to redeem them and invited this avoidable  litigation.\n<\/p>\n
27. The Applicant contends that the amount deposited by  him with the Court Commissioner in this Suit aggregating  to Rs. 2.75 Crores would pay for both the Decrees as well  as other unsecured Creditors. (There are certain minor  unsecured Creditors of the Defendants also to the extent  of Rs. 2.29 lakhs. The claim of the Official Assignee  towards his commission is Rs. 6.20 lakhs).\n<\/p>\n
28. Mr. Dwarkadas argued on behalf of the Applicant  that Shah has no rights except that he purchased the  equity of redemption. That contention is incorrect. He  has not only purchased the equity of redemption. He  became the owner of the property subject to encumbrances.  Shah was never transferred the property by the  mortgagor\/defendants who had the statutory right to redeem  the mortgage under Section 60 of the Transport of Property  Act, 1882. He purchased at the auction conducted by the  B.M.C. for non-payment of Municipal taxes by the  defendants. He was issued the Sale Certificate. He has  made payment to become such owner. He has since been put  in possession of the property. He, therefore, remains the  owner but has the obligation as well as the right to  redeem the mortgage. As held in the case of A. Gnanam  v.  Palaniappa & Co. AIR 2001 Madras 14 B, the  Sale of the property conveys complete title to him. The  equity of redemption also accompanies the property.\n<\/p>\n
29. In fact, that right, which he has sought to  exercise by deposit of the aforesaid 3 pay orders in  satisfaction of the decree in this Suit, cannot be denied  to him by acceptance of Rs. 2.75 crores of the Applicant  instead. It is only Shah who has the right to redeem the  mortgage. Acceptance of the amount, now deposited (by the  Applicant) would tantamount to a clog on the equity of  redemption.\n<\/p>\n
30. In the case of Muhammad Sher Khan v. Raja Seth  Swami Dayal 44 ILR Privy Council 185 it has been held that  despite a contract to the contrary excluding the right of  a mortgagor to exercise his right of redemption during a  particular specified period in the deed itself, he had the  statutory right to redeem the mortgage and the exclusion,  even for a temporary period, constituted a clog on the  equity of redemption.\n<\/p>\n
31. The auction sale held, and the resultant sale  certificate, confers upon him complete title to the  property, subject and to the redemption of the 2  mortgages. In fact, the sanctity of auction sales, upon  execution of decrees have been so considered in 2  Judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Janak Raj  v. Gurdial Singh A<\/a> 1967 SC 608 and Sardar Govindrao  Mahadik v. Devi Sahai A<\/a> 1982 SC 989. In both these  cases, the consequences of sale of property in execution  of a decree of the court came up for consideration. It  has been held that court auction held and confirmed which  resulted in a Sale Certificate being issued would protect  the auction purchaser even if the decree is later set  aside. The object is to protect equity in favour of  stranger auction purchaser. It is observed in para 24 the  case of Janak Raj (Supra) that
\n Sales in execution would not attract  customers and it would be to the detriment  of the interest of the borrower and the  creditor alike if sales were allowed to be  impugned merely because the decree was  ultimately set aside or modified.\n<\/p>\n
Though this is a case of a sale on auction by the B.M.C.  and not in execution of a decree, the same analogy and  reasoning must apply.\n<\/p>\n
32. It, therefore, follows that in exercise of such  right, Shah has deposited the cheques constituting the  amount payable to the Plaintiff until now and that in turn  constitutes full satisfaction of the decree by  payment\/deposit. Mr. Jamdar has relied upon the Judgment  in the case of K.R. Shankar Raj v. State Bank of India   in which the Court was held bound to  record full satisfaction of the decree upon the decretal  amount being deposited in Court.\n<\/p>\n
33. Upon that being done, this entire execution  application itself would stand disposed of by recording  satisfaction of the decree in full.\n<\/p>\n
34. However, Shah, though on the right side of such  technical law, does not inspire complete equity. The  other claim of the Plaintiff Bank remains. That also has  to be redeemed. Shah has failed to do that since 1985.  He has continued in possession. The Bank’s prior claim  has remained unsatisfied. The Bank would be entitled to  have it satisfied through auction sale in execution of  their decree, unless their mortgage is redeemed. That  would be in the D.R.A.T., Mumbai.\n<\/p>\n
35. The offer by the Applicant, which he sought to  withdraw on atleast 3 occasions in 1996, 2003 and 2006,  was not acted upon and his money has remained deposited.  He would have been refunded his amount of Rs. 2 lakhs if  he has applied to Court, which he did not. He only  corresponded with the Commissioner. His deposit of  Rs. 2.75 Crores is only on 16.12.2005 after the withdrawal  of his own offer by himself twice. That is seen to be  only in view of considerable escalation in market price in  the last year. Such deposits begets no rights in in law  and in equity. Such deposit, though outwardly attractive,  cannot entice the Court since the Plaintiffs’ decree is  satisfied by deposit of the 3 pay orders. That amount may  be considered to be utilised by the D.R.A.T. along with  further offers as required, if the Plaintiffs’ decree in  that proceeding remained unsatisfied.\n<\/p>\n
36. The Defendants have been declared Insolvents. The  Official Assignee has been appointed to represent their  estate. (The Defendant No. 3 claims not to be adjudged  insolvent though his partners and firm are !). The  Defendants can be heard only through the Official  Assignee. Nevertheless Ms. Sumedha Rao appearing for the  Defendant No. 3 stated that when the Commissioner’s report  came up for hearing Justice Kamdar (as he then was)  directed a fresh valuation on 19.04.2006. Pursuant to the  valuation, 2 valuation reports have been obtained. She  urged the Court to see the valuation. The reports have  been opened in Court. The fresh valuation has been seen.\n<\/p>\n
37. It has to be seen whether the Court has  jurisdiction to even consider fresh offers merely because  fresh valuation is called for and obtained. The rights  and obligations of each of the contesting parties  crystallize upon any contract being complete. The rights  of Shah crystalised when the Sale Certificate was issued  and he was declared owner of the property upon payment of  consideration by him subject to the Plaintiffs  encumbrances. The rights of the Applicant ceased when he  failed to deposit as per the mandate in Order XXI Rule 84  of the C.P.C and further when he withdrew his own offer  for the first time itself. The rights of the Defendants  ceased upon their property being put for auction by the  B.M.C. and Shah was issued the Sale Certificate by the  B.M.C. The rights of the Plaintiffs extend only to the  satisfaction of their decree (and further the other decree  obtained by them in the D.R.T., Mumbai).\n<\/p>\n
38. It has been held by the Madras High Court in the  case of Jaggi Brothers v. Punjab National Bank 1998(3)  123 Madras Law Weekly 805 that the practice of taking  fresh valuation from time to time must be deprecated. It  has been observed that if the sales are too frequently  adjourned to obtain a higher price, it would be a self  defeating exercise resulting in persons losing faith in  the Court sales and adding to the agony of the Decree  Holders. Hence, if properties are purchased by a bonafide  purchaser who is a stranger to the proceedings, the sale  in his favour has to be protected and cannot be upset at  the instance of the offeror who fails to deposit the  amount offered as per procedure laid down in the C.P.C.  Consequently, when the auction purchaser deposited the  entire amount, interfering with the auction sale which had  achieved finality would be an incorrect interference.\n<\/p>\n
39. Fresh bids need not now be accepted. Since the  Plaintiff’s decree is satisfied in full. The amount of  the auction sale has been deposited with the B.M.C. The  amount is in excess of the B.M.C. taxes. That amount can  pay off the unsecured creditors would be adjusted for the  Official Assignee’s part commission.\n<\/p>\n
40. It must be appreciated that the Defendants were  defaulters at all times. They defaulted in the payment of  taxes of the B.M.C. Hence, their property was put up for  auction. They defaulted in making payment to the  Plaintiff -Bank. Hence, the right of the mortgagee is  exercised. It would be rather insolent for the Defendants  to claim a higher price of the property that no longer  belongs to them, even assuming that they were not adjudged  Insolvent. The Defendants’ right, title, interest has  long since ceased. Only the Plaintiff’s right to recover  the decretal amount remains corresponding with Shah’s  right to redeem the mortgage.\n<\/p>\n
41. The court cannot be swayed merely by higher amount  offered to Court that runs counter to the rights of the  earlier contracting parties that crystalized upon the  contract being successfully completed unless, of course,  the encumbrances subject to which the contract was  completed are not removed.\n<\/p>\n
42. It was understandable for the Applicant to claim  the refund of the deposited amount of Rs. 2 lakhs and to  withdraw the offer made by him. The Applicant cannot  certainly be tied to their offer after knowing the legal  rights, title and interest of Shah as the owner. The  Court, therefore, cannot hold the Applicant responsible.  It is, however, esoteric, how the Applicant can claim any  legal interest in the property upon payment of only a  small part of the offered amount. It is too late in the  day to confirm the sale in favour of the Applicant, merely  because the Applicant has now deposited a higher amount.  Yet, a rider thereto may be added that if the encumbrance  of the Plaintiff remains on the mortgaged property, the  sale of the property would not only be expedient, but the  only recourse. Since the mortgaged property has been put  up for auction since 1995 in execution of the decree of  1974, the Applicant’s offer amount is now deposited and  the present valuation has also been obtained, the amount  as also the valuation may be allowed to be utilised by the  Plaintiffs in execution of their decree in D.R.T., Mumbai.\n<\/p>\n
 43. Hence, the following order:\n<\/p>\n
(i) 3 pay orders of Rs. 5 lakhs, Rs. 10 lakhs and  Rs. 30,63,676\/-shall be deposited to the Credit of the  suit.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) The Plaintiffs shall be entitled to withdraw the  amount of the 3 pay orders.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) The execution application of the Plaintiffs stands  disposed of by satisfaction of the consent decree dated  16.6.1974 as modified on 3.11.1976 in full by such  deposit.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) The Applicant shall have the option to withdraw or  keep deposited the amount of Rs. 2.75 crores lying to the  credit of this Suit.\n<\/p>\n
(v) If the amount is left  transferred by the Prothonotary, Sr.  Bombay to the credit of the D.R.A.T. proceedings as and  when ordered by that Court. deposited, it  Master,  shall  High  beCourt, <\/p>\n
(vi) Defendant No. 3, who  behalf of the Defendants shall pay the valuer’s fees  per rules. got  asthe property revalued on <\/p>\n
(vii) Chamber Summons and the Commissioner’s Report  disposed of accordingly. are <\/p>\n
(viii) This order is stayed for 2 weeks.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Commissioner’S Report Canara … vs Bombay Alloys And Castings And … on 28 February, 2007 Author: R Dalvi Bench: R Dalvi JUDGMENT Roshan Dalvi, J. 1. This Chamber Summons has been taken out by the Applicant who has sought to purchase the suit property initially mortgaged by the Defendant in the suit […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-135151","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner'S Report Canara ... vs Bombay Alloys And Castings And ... on 28 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner'S Report Canara ... vs Bombay Alloys And Castings And ... on 28 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-17T07:10:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner’S Report Canara … vs Bombay Alloys And Castings And … on 28 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-17T07:10:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":4173,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007\",\"name\":\"Commissioner'S Report Canara ... vs Bombay Alloys And Castings And ... on 28 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-17T07:10:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner’S Report Canara … vs Bombay Alloys And Castings And … on 28 February, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner'S Report Canara ... vs Bombay Alloys And Castings And ... on 28 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner'S Report Canara ... vs Bombay Alloys And Castings And ... on 28 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-17T07:10:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner’S Report Canara … vs Bombay Alloys And Castings And … on 28 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-17T07:10:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007"},"wordCount":4173,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007","name":"Commissioner'S Report Canara ... vs Bombay Alloys And Castings And ... on 28 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-17T07:10:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioners-report-canara-vs-bombay-alloys-and-castings-and-on-28-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner’S Report Canara … vs Bombay Alloys And Castings And … on 28 February, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135151","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=135151"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135151\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=135151"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=135151"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=135151"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}