Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 136 (4.15 seconds)
Documents citing Navalkha & Sons vs Sri Ramanya Das & Ors on 27 October, 1969

Rammohansingh Badshahsingh Tomar vs Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal on 6 September, 2018

Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Vedica Procon Private Limited v. Balleshwar Greens Private Limited, (2015) 10 SCC 94, to point out that the Supreme Court in the said decisions has considered the case of Divya Manufacturing Company (P) Limited v. Union Bank of India (supra) and has held that in the said case, the court had failed to take note of the last sentence of paragraph 6 of Navalkha & Sons v. Ramanya Das, (1969) 3 SCC 537, but placed reliance on the penultimate sentence of the paragraph. It was pointed out that the court has emphasized upon the fact that it is well settled that once the Company Court recorded its conclusion that the price is adequate, a subsequent higher offer cannot be a ground for refusing confirmation. It was submitted that in the facts of the present case, the Recovery Officer had, at no point of time, found the price offered by the petitioner to be inadequate. There was no complaint either from the judgment debtor or from the creditor bank. Under the circumstances, merely because at a subsequent stage, a higher offer had been made, could not have been a ground for refusing the confirmation. It was urged that the impugned order passed by the Recovery Officer, is, therefore, without any authority of law and that the Page 6 of 53 C/SCA/3131/2018 JUDGMENT Debts Recovery Tribunal as well as the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal were not justified in confirming the sale and that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside and the sale is required to be confirmed in favour of the petitioner.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - H Devani - Full Document

Balleshwar Greens Pvt Ltd vs Official Liquidator Of M/S Omex ... on 11 August, 2014

The   question   then   is   whether   the   sale   is  favour of the first respondent should have  been   deconfirmed   and   the   assets   ought   to  have been offered for resale merely on the  basis   of   a   higher   offer   (Rs.2,10,00,000)  made by the appellant on the day next after  he was outbidden by the first respondent.  In answering this question due weight must  be   given   to   the   fact,   firstly,   that   no  irregularity   or   fraud   is   alleged   and,  secondly, that in this case the question is  not   whether   the   sale   should   be   confirmed  after   the   acceptance   of   a   bid   by   the  auctioneer   or   agent   but   whether   a   fresh  sale should be ordered by setting at naught  the   sale   already   confirmed   by   the   court  after   taking   into   consideration  all   facts  and circumstances merely because an offeror  who   was   outbidden   changes   his   mind   and  offers   a   higher   price   subsequently.   The  relevant principles enunciated in Navalkha  and Sons case [1970] 40 Comp Cas 936 (SC)  and in Roshan and Co.'s case, AIR 1940 Mad  42, would apply with still greater force in  such   a   case.   Besides,   the   scope   of  interference with the discretion exercised  by the court has also not to be lost sight  of. Unless it is shown that the discretion  has   been   exercised   unreasonably,  capriciously, or by adoption of unjudicial  approach   or   on   wrong   principles,   there  would be no ground to interfere.
Gujarat High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - R M Chhaya - Full Document

Kasturi Commodities Pvt Ltd vs K.Shajahan on 26 July, 2013

In the case of Navalkha and Sons v. Ramanuja Das and Others, AIR 1970 SC 2037, the sale is of immovable property by the Official Liquidator, which sale is subject to confirmation by the Court and in that case the Supreme Court was of the view that the condition of confirmation by the Court operates as a safeguard against the property being sold at inadequate price whether or not it is a consequence of any irregularity or fraud in the conduct of the sale. It only emphasises the fact that the Court should satisfy, having regard to the market value of the property, that the price offered is reasonable. In the same decision, it has been clearly said that after conclusion of the sale, no subsequent higher offer can constitute a valid reason for refusing confirmation of sale or offer already made.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - R Sudhakar - Full Document

Ark Corporation Ltd vs M/S Ace Laboratories Ltd on 1 October, 2018

9. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the highest bidder Mr. Ajay Agarwal follow the law as laid down in the case of M/s Navalkha and Sons Vs. Sri Ramanya Das and ors. (supra), however, all the cases relate to the matter where the Court has already accepted the highest bid. The principle is that once the Court has already confirmed a sale, thereafter it would not lie within the discretion of the Court to later on set aside the confirmation of sale on the ground that another bidder may have come up after the confirmation of sale claiming a higher bid.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Startree Retailors Private Limited vs Mr. Anil Kumar Birla on 17 August, 2022

In Vedica Procons case (supra) the aforesaid view was noticed and after considering many judgments in Paragraph 39, the Court approved the view taken in Navalkha and Sons vs. Sri Ramanya Das & Ors., 1969 (3) SCC 537 that there is a discretion in the Company Court either to accept or reject the highest bid before an order of confirmation of sale is made. However, once the Company Court is satisfied that the price is adequate, the subsequent higher offer cannot be a ground for refusing confirmation. The price of immoveable property keeps on varying depending upon the market conditions and availability of a buyer. Such fluctuations may attract fresh higher offers but normally such offers cannot be made the basis for reopening the confirmed sale which was otherwise valid. In the present case, we are satisfied that the sale made in favour of M/s. Venus Realcon does not require any interference.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vedica Procon Private Limited vs Balleshwar Greens Private Limited . on 13 August, 2015

Assuming for the sake of argument that there is no confirmation, in the absence of any legally tenable ground for not confirming the sale, it cannot be declined to the appellant as it was observed in Navalkha case (supra) that “…no subsequent higher offer can constitute a valid ground for refusing confirmation of the sale or offer already made”.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhavik Bhimjyani vs Uday Vinodchandra Shah on 30 May, 2025

47. A survey of the abovementioned judgments relied upon by the first respondent does not indicate that this Court has ever laid a principle that whenever a higher offer is received in respect of the sale of the property of a company in liquidation, the Court would be justified in reopening the concluded proceedings. The earliest judgment relied upon by the first respondent in Navalkha & Sons laid down the legal position very clearly that a subsequent higher offer is no valid ground for refusing confirmation of a sale of offer already made. Unfortunately in Divya Mfg. Co. this Court departed from the principle laid down in Navalkha & Sons. We have already explained what exactly is the departure and how such a departure was not justified.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Tirupati Woollen Mills Ltd. (In ... vs The Official Liquidator, High Court & ... on 11 August, 1998

22. Mr. P.C. Sen, the learned senior advocate very vehemently argued that if the sale finally confirmed by the court is re-opened, time and again after each such confirmation, on one pretext or ground or the other, properly founded or not, the faith of the purchaser in the confirmed sale in so far as the court is concerned is likely to be shaken. Mr. Sen has relied upon the following observations made in para-6 of the judgment in the case of Naualkha & Sons v. Ramanya Das and Ors. . These observations of their Lordships may be re-produced:
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 20 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next