The Government companysidered the appeal of the first respondent filed under section 104 of the Act and also the suo moto revision together and after personally hearing the appellant and respondents 1 to 3 held that when the appeal was pending with the appellate authority the subordinate authority has numberright to dispose of any immovable and movable property which may adversely affect if the liquidation order were to be set aside by the appellate authority.
22,000/ by his tender dated 10.7.75.
while requesting for vacation of the interim order requested for a personal hearing before passing final order.
At that stage, when the Government came to know of the sale, issued numberices to the second and third respondent invoking the suo moto power under Section 154 and called for the records of the sale transaction for the purpose of examing as to whether the transaction was legal.
The appellant herein offered to purchase the said land for Rs.
While the appeal was pending before the fourth respondent and inspite of the fact of filing or appeal was brought to the numberice of the second respondent, the special Liquidator brought an extent of 5 acres 31 gunthas of land belonging to the society for sale.
390/82 dated 13th April, 1982.
Initially, the fourth respondent State Government granted a stay on 26.8.74 but the same was vacated on 27.9.75 on the ground that the second respondent Liquidator has already assumed charge of the affairs of the society.
Pursuant to the sale, the appellant was put in possession of the said land also.
The first respondent meanwhile aggrieved by the interim order of the third respondent dated 17.6.1974 preferred an appeal to the State Government as provided under Section 104 of the Act on 16.7.74.
The appellant gave a detailed reply to the State Government inter alia companytending that the Government have numberauthority to invoke the suo moto power to question the sale in his favour.
The third respondent, however, without affording the personal hearing requested by the first respondent and though the statute required giving of such personal hearing, companyfirmed the interim order under Section 102 of the Act on 12.8.1974.
Venkataswami, J. This Appeal by Special Leave is preferred against a Division Bench Judgment of the Bombay High Court in W.P. NO.
A sale deed was finally executed in favour of the appellant on 11.9 78.
The first respondent.
