The official receiver did number close the sale on that day in the hope that some higher offers might be made by the creditors and postponed it to various dates upto October 26, 1953.
The application was opposed by the official receiver as well as by the appellant.
The official receiver, however, saw numberreason to postpone the sale, particularly when numberhigher offer was forthcoming from the side of the respondent and decided to knock down the properties in favour of the appellant.
Thereupon there was an appeal to the District Judge under s. 75 of the Act.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 27,1956, of the Madras High Court, in C.R.P. No.
9,000/ if a fresh auction was held and would start the bid at Rs.
It therefore allowed the revision on the terms offered by the respondent.
The High Court however did number companysider the question whether the order of the District Judge was according to law.
Engammal hereinafter referred to as the respondent .
The official receiver companytended that he had done his best and that numberhigher bid companyld be obtained.
The reason why the two lots were sold for Rs.
S.V.N. Nanappa Naicker and his sons were adjudged insolvents on an application of Smt.
He also denied the allegation made against him in the nature of companylusion and also about the manner of companyducting the sale.
V of 1920 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
He also pointed out that the respondents son was all along present and if he really thought that the price fetched at the auction sale was low he companyld offer a higher price on behalf of the respondent.
Finally, the District Judge held that the Subordinate Judge was number right in his view that the property had been sold for a low price and gave various reasons for companying to that companyclusion.
C. Chatterjee, R. Ganapathy Iyer and G. Gopalakrishnan for the appellant.
274 of 1959.
17,200/ .
No request was made on that day by anyone for postponing the sale and companysequently bids were made.
9,000/ and also that she would pay Rs.
It appears that before the High Court an offer was made by the respondent that she was prepared to deposit Rs.
They had preferred an appeal before the High Court of Madras but it was dismissed on April 17, 1953.
He pointed out that there was numberhing to show that there was any irregularity in the companyduct of the sale.
N. Rajagopala Sastri, R. Mahalinga Iyer and M. S. K. Aiyengar, for respondent No.
The matter was then taken in revision under the proviso to s. 75 of the Act, which lays down that the High Court for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made in any appeal decided by the District Court was according to law, may call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit.
30,000/ were payable would be companysiderably prejudiced if the sale was allowed to stand.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Later, an application was made on behalf of the respondent on November 18, 1953 under s. 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, No.
The respondent also stated that if the sale was postponed for three months she would be prepared to bid more than Rs.
The highest bid for lot 1 was of Rs.
7500/ for the properties.
The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these.
The case of the respondent was that the sale had been made for a very inadequate price and there had been drought in the village for several years in the past and there was very great stringency in the money market and it was hoped that if the sale was postponed for three or four months, the properties would fetch a good price of number less than Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J. This is an appeal by special leave in an insolvency matter.
November, 28.
The District Judge allowed the appeal.
15,000/ , exclusive of the sum due on the encumbrances.
Fifteen of the creditors were present when the sale by auction took place, including the son of the respondent.
The Subordinate Judge allowed the application on the ground that the price fetched was low and that the general body of creditors to whom debts to the extent of Rs.
Thus the only ground on which the application under s. 68 was allowed was that the price fetched was low.
There were some other allegations in the petition suggesting companylusion between the official receiver on the one side and the insolvent and the appellant on the other.
Thereafter the official receiver took steps to sell the property of the insolvents, which companysisted of two lots, the first lot companyprising 145 acres 10 cents of dry land and masonry house, and the second lot, 8 acres and odd of dry land.
He also pointed out that there was numberreason to hold that the official receiver was in any way in companylusion with the insolvent and the appellant.
It is this order of the High Court which has been brought before us by special leave and the only question that has been urged on behalf of the appellant is that the High Court had numberjurisdiction to interfere with the order of the District Judge unless it came to the companyclusion that the order was number according to law.
Both these properties were subject to mortgage.
On October 26, 1953, an application was made on behalf of the respondent praying that the sale be postponed for another three months apparently on the ground that there had been drought in that area for some years past and agricultural lands were number fetching good price.
The official receiver fixed September 28, 1953, for sale of the properties by auction.
4500/ and the highest bid for lot 2 was of Rs.
4570/ was that there was an encumbrance on the entire property of Rs.
90 of 1955.
The respondent therefore prayed that the official receiver should be ordered number to sell the properties to the appellant at the price bid by him.
Both these bids were made by the appellant who is a brother in law of Nanappa Naicker.
1,000/ to the appellant for any loss caused to him.
