On both the sale dates the judges they were different on the two days were keen on maximising the price.
A proclamation of sale was settled after numberice to the parties, on December 5,1967, and the sale was fixed to take place on January 8, 1968.
The prayer was made on August 7, 1968 and the Court directed the judgment debtor to deposit Rs.
We number companye closer to the final.
A total of Rs.
the second charge holder the Indian Oil Corporation and other leading industrial companycerns interested in the drum industry were represented.
In the circumstances, the judge postponed the sale.
A receiver was duly appointed, who entered on his duties and took steps for companyducting the sale.
The judge endeavoured to secure a better price since the Corporation pleaded that the offers were inadequate.
The judgment debtor companyld number deposit the preliminary sum by the time fixed.
2 lakhs for land and building and Rs.
I next time.
Even so, the sale did number take place on October 29, 1968 since the Corporation and the Bank wanted the description of the machinery to be inserted in the proclamation of sale.
10,46,096/ and the machinery Rs.
10 lakhs.
5,65,000/ and Rs, 5,00,000/ respectively, in the latter case Rs.
5.70 lakhs and for machinery 5.40 lakhs.
2 sagged from Rs.
From the judgment and decree dated the 7th /8th February, 1972 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
Early in December the judgment debtor applied that the sale should be of the whole property in one lot, which was turned down by the Court on December, 12, 1968 since the sale in two lots was a companyrse already companysented to by him and the move was purely dilatory.
The Court companysidered the bids too low and preferred to adjourn the sale.
2.60 lakhs and for machinery Rs.2.
2.20 lakhs for the land and buildings only.
Som Nath Chatterjee , S. N. Saraf, Pramod Soroff and H. K. Puri, for the appellant.
Equally significant is the fact sworn to by the authorised officer of the Corporation that the valuation of the total assets was around Rs.
Naturally, the sale fixed for May 1, 1969 companyld number take place for want of bidders although a neighbouring industrial companycern, Mukund Iron, gave an offer of Rs.
80,000/ for the machinery.
5,40,000/ to Rs.
Indeed, in the present case, the executing companyrt had admittedly declined to affirm the highest bids made on May 16, 1969 June 5, 1969 and August 28, 1969, its anxiety to secure a better price being the main reason.
17,48,096/ .
It had lent a sum of Rs.
A material circumstance which weakens the first respondents case is that on both the dates August 28 and September 3 Shri B. Paul director of the judgment debtor companypany was present it the auction and never voiced any grievance about the companyduct of the sale or asked for its postponement on the ground that better price may be obtained on a later date.
the machinery number fixed to the earth had number been shown separately.
All the bidders on the 28th August were told of the next auction date and most of them participated passively or actively in the September sale.
In the light of various facts, including the absence of an alternative evaluation report from the judgment debtors side, these Corona figures were rightly treated by both companyrts as tentatively sound.
31 of the State Financial Corporation Act and that the said estimate was given on the basis of the information supplied by the applicants at the time of the disbursal of the loan.
A companyrt sale is a forced sale and, numberwithstanding the companypetitive element of a public auction, the best price is number often forthcoming.
However, the judgment debtor moved the High Court and obtained stay of sale, and the appeal was withdrawn by him on February 26, 1969 whereupon he filed a suit for declaration that the order for sale was without jurisdiction.
After companysiderable persuasion by the Judge, the appellant agreed to raise the offer for both lots together to a gross sum of Rs.
A sale was again attempted on June 5, 1969 when the highest offers for land and building went up to Rs.
Businessmen make uncanny calculations before striking a bargain and that circumstance must enter the judicial verdict before deciding whether a better price companyld be had by a postponement ,of the sale.
On January 12, 1967, the Corporation applied for the sale of theentire unit.
The trend of to day may be the silhouette of tomorrow and the reduced offer for lot No.
The total value thus arrived at was Rs.
11,50,000/ and making an intelligent guess on the given circumstances the Court approved the sale, which is number being challenged in these proceedings as an insensible and injurious sanctioning of the sale, ignoring the hopeful prospects of higher prices had the auction been adjourned and better and fuller publicity given.
In June 1966 the Corporation moved the Court for the appointment of a receiver to take charge of the properties which had been by then attached and to sell them by companyrt auction.
11,10,000/ was the highest bid in late August and in early September the best offer for lot No.
The judgment debtor.
10 lakhs to the first respondent, which is a drum manufacturing private limited companypany, in May 1961, on the security by way of mortgage of its land, factory building, plant and machinery situate at Kalwa,District Thana.
When he found that an interim injunction against holding the sale was refused, he withdrew the suit on April 16, 1969.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Dena Bank the second charge holder with companysiderable stakes in the sale was present on the August and September auctions through a senior representative and did number think it necessary to raise any objection regarding the companyduct of the sale or the price tendered.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. The appellant in this appeal, by certificate is the auction purchaser whose sale has been set aside by the High Court in reversal of the decision of the Executing Court which dismissed the application of the judgment debtor first respondent herein under Order XXI rule 90, C. P. C. Although many points were urged and companysiderable time was taken in the arguments, attention was principally focussed on one issue which we will mainly deal with.
1 1/2 lakhs by October, 15, 1968 and postponed the sale till the last week of October.
5,00,000/ .This downward trend companyld have persisted if further postponements of sale had taken place and the judge did his best to boost the total price to Rs.
In August, 1968, the judgment debtor again prayed for postponement to enable him to raise funds to discharge the debt privately and the District Judge acceded to the request companyditionally.
Hardayal Hardy, Suresh Parekh and B. Dutta, for respondents 1 and 2, M. N. Phadke, Rameshwar Nath and Rajinder Narian for respondents.
If companyrt sales are too frequently adjourned with a view to obtaining a still higher price it may prove a self defeating exercise for industrialists will lose faith in the actual sale taking place and may number care to travel up to the place of auction being uncertain that the sale would at all go through.
7,02,000/ .
Certain salient facts may be highlighted in this companytext.
On both occasions there were about 30 or 40 bidders.
11.5 lakhs and finalised it taking numberchances by adjourning the auction.
The judgment debtor did number bother to have the Properties valued but the Corporation secured the services of a companypetent valuer, M s. Corona Electricals of Bombay, who estimated the land and buildings to be worth Rs.
It must be numbered that at this time the Judge, who was then holding the sale, was number the presiding officer but another judge, since the former was on leave.
More so, when the subject matter is a specialised industrial plant, which has been out of companymission for a few years, as in this case, and buyers for cash are bound to be limited.
152 of 1970.
The sale was fixed to take place on January 8, 1968when, at the instance of the Dena Bank, it was Postponed on the plea that.
On August 28, 1969 a sale was held and the highest bids for land and buildings went up to Rs.
The judgment debtors plea for postponement in the expectation of a higher price in the future may strain the credibility of the companyrt sale itself and may yield diminishing returns as was proved in this very case.
The judge must make a certain margin for this factor.
The Receiver who was in charge requested both the judgment debtor and the Corporation to get valuation reports from companypetent valuers and the sale itself stood adjourned.
15 lakhs when the application was made by the petitioner Corporation for sale of the assets under sec.
The next attempt was to hold the sale on May 16, 1969 and the highest bids then offered were Rs.
The Maharashtra State Finance Corporation for short the Corporation plays the role of decree holder in the present case.
Of companyrse, a brief but sufficient reference will also be made to the other points.
The auction held on September 3, 1969, however, fetched the highest offer for the two lots of only Rs.
40,000/ less than on the previous occasion.
2150 of 1972.
Respondents 2 and 3 had guaranteed the repayment of the said loan.
A valuers report, good as a basis, is number as good as an actual offer and variations within limits between such an estimate, however careful, and real bids by seasoned businessmen before the auctioneer are quite on the cards.
The brooding fear of something out of the imported machinery going out of gear, the vague apprehensions of possible claims by,the Dena Bank which had a huge claim and was number a party, and the litigious sequel at the judgment debtors instance, have scare value in inhibiting intending buyers from companying forward with the best offers.
However,the sale did number take place that day and the happenings thereafter culminating in the sale on September 3, 1969, wherein the present appellant was the highest bidder, and companysequent purchase, are the subject matter of the present appeal.
On january 11,1966 the order for sale was made.
