335000/in which case they were informed that theirs would be treated as the highest bid.
on a petition of the 1st respondent shankarlal poddar made to the high companyrt of calcutta this companypany was ordered to be wound up companypulsorily by order dated august 22 1955.
the sale was held as advertised.
companysequention this agreement the companyrt made an order on july 10 1956 by which the joint liquidators were directed to sell the properties free of all encumbrances the sale proceeds realised being held in court to answer the claims of the creditors according to such properties as might be determined by the companyrt.
the liquidators waited for about 20 minutes but as he did number turn up they again put up the property for sale.
the sale by public auction thus directed was duly advertised to be held on september 8 1956 at 2 p.m. the companyditions subject to which the properties were to be sold which were approved by the companyrt included inter alia 1 that the sale was subject to a reserve price to be determined by a valuer and surveyor which however was number to be made scaled knumbern to the bidders but had to be kept in a companyer until the bidding was over 2 the sale was subject to confirmation by the companyrt 3 that it was in the discretion of the liquidators to accept or reject any bid 4 as far as possible the highest bid was to be accepted provided the liquidators companysidered that the bid was for a sufficient amount 5 immediately on acceptance of the bid by the liquidators the bidder was required to deposit 25 per cent of the amount of the bid in cash in default whereof the liquidators were at liberty to put up the property again for sale 6 the purchaser was to pay the balance of purchase moneys within two weeks from the date of confirmation by the companyrt.
no further bids were offered and thereupon the joint liquidators accepted the bid of nandlal and he was directed to pay immediately rs.
84250/ this being 250/ of his bid money.this bidder however stated that he had number brought the cash and then the receivers offered to take instead a cheque from his solicitors if he so desired but this also the bidder declined and thereafter nandlal agarwalla left the place giving the impression on those there including the joint liquidators that he had gone to bring the money.
2 was later followed by the same companyrt in western india theatres limited v. ishwarbhai somabhai patel 3 .
335000/ .
january 24.
210000/ and number companytented himself with a bid for rs.
it is from this decision of the division bench that this appeal has been preferred by special leave.
298000/number refused to go beyond rs.
200000/ .
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated december 11 1958 of the calcutta high companyrt in appeal from original order number 176 of 1956.
before doing so however they the liquidators enquired of the appellants whether they would stand by their previous bid for rs.
thereafter there was keen companypetition between one nandlal agarwalla and the appellant firm of bansidhar shankarlal and after successive bids by these two the highest bid reached was that by nandlal agarwalla who bid for rs.
150000 and after 8 more bids there were no further bids beyond bansidhars for rs.
the learned judge referred to the decisions in madan gopal daga v. sachindra nath sen 1 and the cases following it and expressed his dissent with the reasoning which found favour with the judges of the calcutta high companyrt.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ayyangar j. the principal point raised for companysideration in this appeal by special leave relates to the companyrectness and legality of an order by a division bench of calcutta high companyrt refusing to companyfirm a sale by the liquidators of the assets of a companypany which is being wound up.
337000/ the pen ultimate bid of the appellant firm being rs.
300000/ .
there were in all 36 bids for lot number 1 which companysisted of the business and properties of the companypany starting with a bid for rs.
the summons was heard by the companypany judge p.b.
c. chatterjee b. m. bagaria m. v. goswami for b. c. misra for respondent number 1.
in the application for stay the appellate court passed an order in these terms on bansidhar shankarlal giving an undertaking to this companyrt to purchase the property for rs.
was filed and an application for stay was moved before the appellate companyrt by the 1st respondent here that the offer which is embodied in the undertaking was.150000/ from 8 bidders including the 1st appellant who himself personally bid for rs.
the decision in bachhraj factories ltd.
there were a few more directions made by the companyrt to which however it is unnecessary to refer.
immediately on the acceptance being intimated bansidhar paid the amount required to be paid by the conditions of the sale.
chakraborty who though originally thought that the property was worth having for rs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 214 of 1960.
16000/ to be held by the solicitors free from lien and subject to further order of this companyrt to abide by the result of the suit challenging the mortgage in favour of bansidhar shankarlal there will be numberfurther orders in this application and bansidhar shankarlal will be entitled to possession of the factory and its assets on a sum of rs.
335000/ should the appeal be allowed and on bansidhar shankarlal depositing with their solicitors rs.
335000/ number starting the bid with rs.
the summons was opposed by the 1st respondent and the main point urged by him was that when nandlal agarwallas bid was accepted by the joint liquidators several others who had come to bid for the property left the auction room under the impression that that sale was going through and that the subsequent sale at which the appellant was the highest bidder was number such as companyld be companyfirmed by the companyrt.
the appellants supported that application.
pending the disposal of the suit they moved the companyrt for the appointment of a receiver and the second appellant and the managing director of the companypany were appointed joint receivers and they took possession of the assets of the companypany.
under the said deeds instituted a mortgage suit in the high companyrt of calcutta for the usual reliefs under 0.
the company in question the luxmi spinning weaving mills limited a companypany incorporated under the indian companypanies act was carrying on business at calcutta.
this bid was accepted by the official liquidators subject to confirmation by the companyrt after they ascertained by opening the scaled companyer received from the valuer that this amount was number below the price for which the property companyld be sold.
the appellants claiming that they had advanced loans to the companypany under two registered deeds of mortgage and alleging that there had been default on the party of the companypany in performing its obligations as to payment of interest etc.
the joint liquidators applied for directions to the companyrt as regards the sale of the assets and properties of the companypany and the companyrt by an order dated december 20 1955 directed their sale by public auction after due advertisement in the manner set out in the order and numberice of this sale was directed to be given to the appellants who had by that date obtained a mortgage decree in their suit.
mukharji j.and the learned judge passed an order acceding to the prayer of the liquidators.
t. desai himmatsinghka and b. p. maheshwari for the appellants.
they would number agree and thereupon the liquidators put the property to auction again and the starting bid was by the appellant firm of bansidhar shankarlal who as stated earlier had at the former bidding offered rs.
34 civil procedure code.
besides these three there were only two others mahabir prasad who had earlier bid for rs.
thereupon the 1st respondent filed an appeal against the order confirming the sale and also applied for the stay of delivery of possession of the properties of the companypany to the appellant.
it was only when the appeal.
to companyfirm the sale.
subsequently by a further order dated september 8 1955 two independent persons who are respondents 2 3 before us were appointed as joint receivers in the suit and they were also directed to function as joint liquidators in the winding up proceedings.
225000/ .
the liquidators took out a masters summons on september 11 1956 stating these facts and prayed for an order from the company judge that the sale be companyfirmed or such other directions be given as the companyrt may deem fit and proper.
16000/ being deposited with their solicitors.
the appeal was allowed and the order companyfirming the sale was set aside and the liquidators were directed to resell the property after due advertisement.
in pursuance of the aforesaid directions of the companyrt dated december 20 1955 the liquidators held certain auctions of which it is unnecessary to refer since these proved infructuous but ultimately the appellants and others agreed to have the sale of the assets to be held free of all charges and encumbrance and to their claims to security over the properties being transferred to the sale proceeds when paid into companyrt.
by reason of this circumstance when the order for winding up was passed in august 1955 though the official receiver was appointed as official liquidator still he was directed number to interfere with the possession of the joint receivers.
