Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)
Navalkha & Sons vs Sri Ramanya Das & Ors on 27 October, 1969 cites

Gordon Das Chuni Lal Dakuwala vs T. Sriman Kanthimathinatha Pillai And ... on 11 August, 1920

In Gordhan Das Chuni Lal v. T. Sriman Kanthimathinatha Pillai(1) it was observed that where the property is authorised to be sold by private contract or otherwise it is the duty of the Court to satisfy itself that the price fixed 'is the best that could be expected to be offered. That is because the Court is the custodian of the interests of the Company and its creditors and the sanction of the Court required under the Companies Act has to be exercised with judicial discretion regard being had to the interests of the Company and its creditors as well.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 35 - Full Document

A. Subbaraya Mudaliar vs K. Sundararajan, (Joint Receiver) And ... on 9 July, 1951

In A. Subbaraya Mudaliar v. K.Sundarajan(4) it was pointed out that the condition of confirmation by the Court being a safeguard against the property being sold at an inadequate price, it will be not only proper but necessary that the Court in exercising the discretion which it undoubtedly has of accepting or refusing the highest bid at the auc- (1)A.T.R. 1921 mad. 286.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 33 - Full Document
1