DHIRENDRA NATH GORAI AND SUBAL CHANDRASHAW AND OTHERS vs SUDHIR CHANDRA GHOSH AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court held that non-compliance with Section 35 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940, constitutes a defect in the sale process but does not render the sale a nullity. The Court ruled that a party who received notice but failed to object cannot maintain an application under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure unless they demonstrate substantial injury due to the defect. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were upheld, confirming that no substantial injury was caused to the judgment-debtor, thus validating the sale.