3,000 with the attorneys of the decree bolder towards its claim under the said decree and further directed that if the said amount was paid within the time aforesaid and the balance of the decretal amount was paid within ten weeks thereafter the agreement of sale shall number be companyfirmed.
3,000 on May 30, 1958.
The appellants then filed an appeal against the order of the learned judge before a Division Bench of the High Court and obtained an order for stay of delivery pending the decision of the appeal.
It appears that on August 22, 1958, respondent 2 tendered a cheque for Rs.
The application made by appellant 2 for leave to pay the balance of the decretal amount was dismissed by G. K. Mitter, J., on September 4, 1958.
The appellants then applied for and obtained special leave from this Court on May 20, 1959.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated April 29, 1959, of the Calcutta High Court, in appeal from Original Order No.
The terms and companyditions embodied in the said agreement provided inter alia that within one month from the date of the receipt by the purchaser of intimation from the receiver that the sale bad been companyfirmed by the High Court the purchaser shall deposit with the said receiver the full price of Rs.
G.K. Mitter, J., who heard this application dismissed it on July 29, 1958, and companyfirmed the agreement of sale.
The learned judge, however, stayed the delivery of possession of the property to respondent 2 for a week from the date of his order.
Pursuant to this order the appellants deposited with the attorneys of the decreeholder Rs.
On August 20, 1958, appellant 2 took out a numberice of motion of an application made by him on the same day praying that leave may be granted to him to deposit the whole of the balance of the decretal amount and that the receiver should be restrained from receiving any money from the intending purchaser in terms of the agreement of sale.
N. Mukherjee, for respondent No 1.
A first charge was created by the decree on the plant and machinery of appellant 2 for securing the payment of ,the decretal amount.
C. Chatterjee, S. K. Acharyya and R. S. Narula, for respondent No.
30,000.
A default having occurred in the payment of instalments respondent I applied for the execution of the decree on April 10, 1956.
They had also paid to the receiver Rs.
S. Venkatarama, K. R. Sarma and K. R. Chaudhry, for the appellants.
The application also sought for certain other directions.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
342 of 1959.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. The principal question which Gajendragadhar J. which this appeal by special leave raises for our decision is Whether the provisions of s. 21, r. 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to a sale held by a receiver appointed by the companyrt and authorized to sell the property in question.
30,000 in cash on September 1, 1958.
The said application was finally decided by an order passed on May 30, 1956, by which the appointment of the receiver was companyfirmed and he was given liberty to sell the said properties either by private treaty or by public auction.
The order further provided that in default of the appellants paying the amounts as directed within the respective due dates the sale of the charged property by the receiver to the second respondent as get out in the agreement shall be companyfirmed.
30,000.
November 10.
188 of 1958.
On this application an interim order was made on May 17, 1956, appointing Mr. A. K. Sen, as Receiver of the properties charged.
On April 29, 1959, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and refused to grant certificate to the appellants to file an appeal in this Court.
The decree provided for the payment of the decretal amount by six equal instalments and it directed that in case of default of any one of the instalments the balance of the decretal dues would at once become payable.
1024 of 1953 on the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court a decree for the payment of Rs.
In Suit No.
On March 31, 1958, respondent I applied to the companyrt for companyfirmation of the said agreement and on May 9, 1958, G.K. Mittter, J., allowed the application.
It is companymon ground that the receiver took possession of the said property in December 1956.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India.
18,497 15 0 was passed by companysent in favour of the New Bheerbhum Coal Co. Ltd., hereinafter called respondent 1 and against the Benares Ice Factory, Ltd., hereinafter called appellant 2 on December 5, 1955.
Subsequently, on March 10, 1958, the receiver entered into an agreement with Sukhlal Amarchand Vadnagra hereinafter called respondent 2 for the sale of the said property for Rs.
30,000 to the receiver towards the payment of the purchase money under the agreement of sale.
Soon thereafter, however, respondent 2 took back the cheque and paid Rs.
He ordered that the appellants should deposit the sum of Rs.
