No request was made on that day by anyone for postponing the sale and companysequently bids were made.
V of 1920 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
4500/ and the highest bid for lot 2 was of Rs.
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.
He appointed out that there was numberhing to show that there was any irregularity in the companyduct of the sale.
Finally, the District Judge held that the Subordinate Judge was number right in this view that the property had been sold for a law price and gave various reasons for companying to that companyclusion.
Thereupon there was an appeal to the District Judge under s. 75 of the Act.
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 reason why the two lots were sold for Rs.
15,000/ , exclusive of the sum due on the encumbrances.
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.
9,000/ and also that she would pay Rs.
Both these properties were subject to mortgage.
It therefore allowed the revision on the terms offered by the respondent.
1,000/ to the appellant for any loss caused to him.
30,000/ were payable would be companysiderably prejudiced if the sale was allowed to stand.
The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these.
Fifteen of the creditors were present when the sale by auction took place, including the son of the respondent.
The District Judge allowed the appeal.
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.
Both these bids were made by the appellant who is a brother in law of Nanappa Naicker.
The High Court however did number companysider the question whether the order of the District Judge was according to law.
7500/ for the properties.
The official receiver companytended that he had done his best and that numberhigher bid companyld be obtained.
Thus the only ground on which the application under s. 68 was allowed was that the price fetched was low.
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.
It appears that before the High Court an offer was made by the respondent that she was prepared to deposit Rs.
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.
4570/ was that there was an encumbrance on the entire property of Rs.
The respondent also stated that if the sale was postponed for three months she would be prepared to bid more than Rs.
The application was opposed by the official receiver as well as by the appellant.
17,200/ .
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.
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.
9,000/ if a fresh auction was held and would start the bid at Rs.
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 decide by the District Court was according to law, may call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit.
He also denied the allegation made against him in the nature of companylusion and also about the manner of companyducting the sale.
The highest bid for lot 1 was of Rs.
S. V. N. Nanappa Naicker and his sons were adjudged insolvents on an application of Smt.
The official receiver fixed September 28, 1953, for sale of the properties by auction.
Later, an application was made on behalf of the respondent on November 18, 1953 under s. 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, No.
Wanchoo, J. This is an appeal by special leave in an insolvency matter.
Engammal hereinafter referred to as the respondent .
They had preferred an appeal before the High Court of Madras but it was dismissed on April 17, 1953.
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.
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.
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 that order was number according to law.
