- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India v. Jaiswal Coal Co. Ltd. And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The Supreme Court of India considered a report dated 31 March 1999 submitted by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohanlalganj, Lucknow concerning court-ordered auctions of two properties belonging to members of the Jaiswal family. The agricultural land had already been auctioned for Rs 8,50,000, while House No. 546-547, Sector E, Hind Nagar, Kanpur Road, Lucknow had been auctioned but the sale had not yet been confirmed. During the Supreme Court proceedings, counsel for Shri Kubernath Jaiswal deposited Rs 6,18,858—completing a balance of Rs 14,68,858—in favour of the Union of India. The Court also took note of Writ Petition No. 823 of 1999 filed before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court challenging the auction of the same house.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the auction-sale of the agricultural land should be confirmed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) after hearing objections, if any.
- Whether the auction-sale of House No. 546-547 should be confirmed, set aside, or otherwise modified in view of the deposit made by Shri Kubernath Jaiswal.
- Whether the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench had jurisdiction to entertain Writ Petition No. 823 of 1999 when the subject-matter was already under consideration by the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Krishna Kumar Tiwari v. Civil Judge (S.D.) Mohanlalganj, W.P. No. 823 of 1999 (Allahabad H.C., Lucknow Bench) | Illustrates pendency of parallel proceedings regarding the same auction-sale. | The Supreme Court observed that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition because the matter was already pending before the Supreme Court, emphasizing the requirement of judicial discipline. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. Agricultural land: The Court directed the Civil Judge (Senior Division) to confirm the auction-sale after considering any objections on 28 April 1999, and ordered that the realized amount of Rs 8,50,000 be remitted to the Union of India.
2. House No. 546-547: Because Shri Kubernath Jaiswal deposited the outstanding balance of Rs 6,18,858 in court, the Supreme Court set aside the auction-sale of the house, vacated its attachment, but prohibited any alienation of the property without the Court’s leave. The Deputy Registrar was instructed to transfer the deposited funds to the Union of India.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court: The Court expressed “displeasure” that the Allahabad High Court entertained a writ petition concerning a matter already seized by the Supreme Court. It held that judicial discipline required the High Court to decline jurisdiction and instead direct parties to approach the Supreme Court.
4. Proceedings against Shri Gorakhnath Jaiswal: The matter was adjourned for four weeks without substantive decision.
Holding and Implications
ORDER: (a) The Civil Judge shall proceed to confirm the auction-sale of the agricultural land on 28 April 1999 after hearing objections; (b) the auction-sale of House No. 546-547 is SET ASIDE, its attachment vacated, and alienation barred without prior leave of the Supreme Court; (c) funds from both properties are to be paid to the Union of India; (d) the High Court is admonished for exercising jurisdiction over a matter pending in the Supreme Court; and (e) proceedings against Shri Gorakhnath Jaiswal are adjourned for four weeks.
Implications: The decision immediately affects the parties by directing the distribution of auction proceeds and restoring ownership of the house to Shri Kubernath Jaiswal subject to restrictions. It also reinforces the principle that subordinate courts and High Courts should refrain from intervening in matters already under consideration by the Supreme Court, although no new legal precedent was formally established.
1. We have perused the report of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohanlalganj, Lucknow dated 31-3-1999 and heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) shall confirm the auction-sale of the agricultural land, after hearing the objection, if any, on the next date fixed in the case i.e 28-4-1999. The amount of Rs 8,50,000, which has been received as the auction money in respect of sale of the agricultural land, shall be given to the Union of India against proper receipt.
3. So far as the house property, namely, House No. 546-547, situated at Sector E, Hind Nagar, Kanpur Road, Lucknow is concerned, learned counsel appearing for Shri Kubernath Jaiswal has today deposited in this Court an amount of Rs 6,18,858 by bank drafts in the name of the Deputy Registrar (Administration) Supreme Court being the balance amount of Rs 14,68,858. The Deputy Registrar shall draw the amount of the bank drafts and pay the same to the Union of India against proper receipt. The auction-sale of the aforesaid house shall, therefore, not be confirmed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). On account of the deposit made today in this Court by Shri Kubernath Jaiswal, the attachment of the above-mentioned house is vacated. It is, however, directed that Shri Kubernath Jaiswal shall not alienate the said house, without the leave of this Court. The auction-sale of the aforesaid house is set aside.
4. We are rather concerned to note that Writ Petition No. 823 of 1999 [Krishna Kumar Tiwari v. Civil Judge (S.D) Mohanlalganj] has been entertained by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. That writ petition is directed against the auction-sale of House No. 546-547, Sector E, Hind Nagar, Kanpur Road, Lucknow and seeks an order to the effect that the auction-sale be not confirmed. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has noticed, in the interim order made on 30-3-1999, that auction was being conducted under orders of this Court and that the matter concerning auction of the house was pending in this Court. How then a writ petition could be entertained in the High Court is not understandable. Judicial discipline required the High Court not to entertain any such petition, when the proceedings were pending in this Court in respect of the subject-matter of the case. The parties should have been asked to approach this Court, if so advised. The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition in the fact situation. We need say nothing further on this aspect except to record our displeasure. This order shall be brought to the notice of the High Court.
5. Insofar as the case against Shri Gorakhnath Jaiswal is concerned, let the matter be listed after four weeks.
Court Masters
Alert