B VIJAY KUMAR vs METTA CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO AND ORS — C.A. No. 17374/2017
Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010104542017
Filing Date
03-Apr-2017
Registration No
C.A. No. 17374/2017
Diary Number
10454/2017
Order Date
30-Oct-2017
Document Type
Judgement
Neutral Citation
2017 INSC 1062
Last updated 23-Mar-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.B VIJAY KUMAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.METTA CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO AND ORS
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
21-Apr-2017
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Apr-2017
ROPView PDF
-
21-Apr-2017
Office ReportView PDF
-
21-Apr-2017
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Apr-2017
ROPView PDF
-
21-Apr-2017
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Apr-2017
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 17374/2017
-
21-Mar-2017
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Mar-2017
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Mar-2017
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Feb-2017
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Feb-2017
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Feb-2017
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Jan-2017
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Jan-2017
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Jan-2017
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Nov-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Nov-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
[ 2017 INSC 1062 ]
JudgementView PDF
-
[ 2017 INSC 1061 ]
Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF
Common Record of Proceedings — heard with connected matters
Lead case: C.A. No. 17372/2017
SUMMARY OF C.A. NO. 017374/2017 (B VIJAY KUMAR v. METTA CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO AND ORS) The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order that had invalidated a property sale and auction certificate. The High Court had previously held the mortgage invalid because, despite being created by deposit of title deeds, the mortgagor's waiver letter lacked registration. The Supreme Court rejected this finding, holding that the validity issue should not have been raised for the first time in the writ petition stage, and emphasizing that the parties had acted upon the mortgage to sanction and obtain the loan and that the auction purchaser—an innocent third party who obtained financing and invested substantially in renovations—would be prejudiced by reversing the sale. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts