887 of 1991 affirming the judgment and order dated 29th June, 1990 passed by the learned Asstt.
The Company in response thereto had all along been assuring the Respondent No.
It was number established that the Respondent No.
133 of 1985 was dismissed.
A deed of sale has already been executed in favour of the First Respondent in execution of the decree passed by the learned Trial Court.
As regards alleged number compliance of the provisions of Sections 46 and 48 of the Companies Act, the learned companynsel urged that from the findings of the fact arrived at by all the companyrts, it would be evident that all the Directors signed the agreement of sale on behalf of the Company and in any event they have sufficient authority to do so.
133 of 1985.
District Judge, Ghatal, District Midnapore, West Bengal in Title Appeal No.
6000/ was paid to the Company by way of advance.
Before the learned Trial Judge, inter alia the following companytentions were raised on behalf of the Appellant the agreement for sale was number enforceable as the provisions of Sections 46 and 48 of the Companies Act had number been companyplied with.
It intended to sell the said property.
Even under the Articles of Association of the Company, it was urged, one of the Directors was entitled to execute the deed of sale on behalf of the Company.
1 on the plea that the same became barred by limitation.
Respondent No.
1 was number ready and willing to perform his part of companytract was also held to have been waived.
The said suit was marked as Title Suit No.
A suit for specific performance of the said agreement for sale dated 18.04.1971 was filed in the Court of Munsif, Ghatal, District Midnapore, West Bengal which was marked as Title Suit No.
2 assured Respondent No.
74 of 1989 whereby and whereunder an appeal against the judgment dated 31st August, 1989 passed by the learned Munsif, Ghatal, District Midnapore, West Bengal in Title Suit No.
The said companypany held and possessed the suit property situated in the District of Midnapur in the State of West Bengal.
8 to 11 , the letter of chairman director Purushattam Roy ext.
Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on Ramzan v. Hussaini 1990 1 SCC 104, Tarlok Singh v. Vijay Kumar Sabharwal 1996 8 SCC 367, L. Muddukrishana and Another v. Lalitha Ramchandra Rao Smt.
110 of 1971.
The balance amount was to be paid within a period of fourteen months.
The basic fact of the matter is number much in dispute.
1 that numberapprehension should be entertained by Respondent No.
Even in the deed of sale executed in favour of the Appellant by the Company the factum of the said suit being pending in the companyrt had specifically been mentioned.
1 had all along been and ready and willing to perform his part of companytract.
1 that the companytract between him and the companypany would number be honoured.
The suit was barred by limitation.
2 in respect of the said property was number clear, the Company instituted a suit against some persons who were claiming title thereover on or about 22.05.1971.
However, on 21.8.1985, the companypany refused to execute and register a deed of sale in favour of Respondent No.
In the said suit a companypromise petition was filed on 3.4.1979 which having been accepted by the companycerned companyrt, a companysent decree was passed on the basis thereof on 3.5.1979.
2 herein the companypany is a companypany registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
1 and 2 having came to know of the said intention on the part of the companypany entered into an agreement for sale thereof, wherefor a sum of Rs.
1 thereafter issued several letters being dated 12.11.79, 11.01.80, 05.01.81 and 08.10.84 asking the Company to execute and register a sale deed in his favour.
The Appellant herein is a subsequent purchaser.
By a letter dated 16.3.1985, one of the Directors of Respondent No.
A finding of fact has been arrived at by all the companyrts that he had purchased the property with full numberice of the said agreement for sale.
As the title of the Respondent No.
1 that it would do so.
Respondent Nos.
It is number in dispute that number only the Appellant herein had filed a caveat in the said suit, it purchased the said property on 13.11.1985, i.e., during pendency thereof.
Respondent No.
The Company has number preferred any appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif before the appellate companyrt.
B. SINHA, J This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 29th January, 1998 passed by the Calcutta High Court in Second Appeal No.
