The sale of section 15 Civil Code (v. 1908), AXXI, R 66 by auction scope appellant claimed that the suits purchased in 249 1997 were property owners. The appellant proceeded to auction on the plea that no notice was taken under section 15 (3). ) The Financial Institutions (Financial Recovery) Ordinance, 2001, was given to them and is in violation of the mandatory provision of the law, which was not transparently auctioned and was done in a fraudulent and collective manner. Be supported. The auction buyer was not auctioned on the site, nor was the number of participants involved in the auction proceedings, nor did the suit property auction or bid deposit at a price below the forced sale price. I was strictly mentioned. In accordance with the law and / or the terms and conditions of a public auction, the sale of the suit property in favor of the auction buyer was declared as fake and defective in Law V. The isolation of Sections 15 (3) and (10) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, 2001, so non-compliance / violation of the requirements and conditions of the public auction also led to the auction proceedings and the public auction. Terms and Conditions. And the sale of a suit property at a price lower than the forced sale price was not sustainable in the law. The High Court rejected the auction proceedings and allowed the same appeal in the circumstances.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
