Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.28 seconds)Navalkha & Sons vs Sri Ramanya Das & Ors on 27 October, 1969
29. The case law on the subject also provides adequate guidance. The decision in Navalkha and Sons v. Ramanuja Das [1970] 40 Comp Cas 936 (SC) being directly in point may be first referred to. In that case, the official liquidator as well as a shareholder of the company (in liquidation) sought directions of the court for the sale of immovable and movable properties and actionable claims of the company. The court appointed joint commissioners for effecting the sale subject to certain terms and conditions. Accordingly, a sale proclamation was drawn up and issued by the commissioners inviting sealed tenders for the purchase of movable and immovable properties and actionable claims of the company (in liquidation) as a single unit. The proclamation was published in four leading English dailies only instead of five. Besides, the advertisement was made only in two out of those four newspapers twice ; in the remaining two, there was only one insertion. This was contrary to the conditions of sale approved by the court. Not even a single offer was received on or before September 8, 1964, which was the last date fixed for the purpose. The time for receipt of offers was extended by the court to the end of November, 1964. The appellant, Navalkha and Sons, were the sole offerers and they offered a sum of Rs. 7,91,001 in respect of immovable properties and machinery. No offer for the actionable claims was made by the firm. The offer was accepted by the Commissioners on December 2, 1964. On
being called upon, the initial deposit was made immediately. On December 3, 1964, the Commissioners made an application to the court for confirmation of the sale.
S. Soundararajan And Ors. vs Khaka Mahomed Ismail Saheb Of Messrs. ... on 1 August, 1939
42. The question then is whether the sale in 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 , 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 ho ground to interfere.
The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd vs Pothan Joseph on 27 April, 1960
28. It is not disputed that the order under appeal dated February 6, 1990, accepting the offer and confirming the sale in favour of the first respondent is discretionary in nature. The appellate court would not be normally justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage, it would have come to a different conclusion. If, however, the exercise of discretion by the trial court is in law wrongful and improper, that is, in exercising the discretion the trial court has acted unreasonably or capriciously or has ignored relevant facts and has adopted an unjudicial approach or proceeded on wrong principles, then it would be open to the appellate court --and in many cases it may be its duty--to interfere with such exercise of discretion (see Printers (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph, ). The same considerations must weigh also in judging the order under appeal dated February 7, 1990. The said order is also of similar nature since the court in the exercise of its discretion rejected the prayer for de-confirming the sale made in favour of the first respondent and for ordering a fresh sale.
Section 448 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 449 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 446 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
1