S. Soundararajan And Ors. vs Khaka Mahomed Ismail Saheb Of Messrs. ... on 1 August, 1939
(p. 2039)
In the decision referred in S. Soundararajan's case (supra), the Madras High Court held :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.29 seconds)Section 459 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Gordon Das Chuni Lal Dakuwala vs T. Sriman Kanthimathinatha Pillai And ... on 11 August, 1920
In Gordhan Das Chunni Lal v. Kanthimathinatha Pillai AIR 1921 Mad. 286, it was observed that where the property is authorized 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.
A. Subbaraya Mudaliar vs K. Sundararajan, (Joint Receiver) And ... on 9 July, 1951
42, In A. Subbaraya Mudaliar v. K. Sundararajan , 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 auction held in pursuance of its orders, should see that the price fetched at the auction is an adequate price even though there is no suggestion of irregularity or fraud. It is well to bear in mind the other principle which is equally well-settled namely that once the Court comes to the conclusion that the price offered is adequate, no subsequent higher offer can constitute a valid ground for refusing confirmation of the sale or offer already received.
Amba Tannin And Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Official Liquidator, High Court, ... on 22 February, 1974
Where property is sold by an Official Liquidator, subject to the confirmation of Court any subsequent offer of any higher amount would not be a ground for enquiry or for refusing confirmation of sale." (p. 64)
In Amba Tannin & Pharmaceuticals v. Official Liquidator [1975] 45 Comp. Cas. 457 (Bom.), it was held that it is the right of the Court to satisfy itself that the price offered for sale of property is quite reasonable looking to the current market value of the said property and until the Court is satisfied about the adequacy of price offered for sale of the property, there would not be proper exercise of judicial discretion. In Wellworth Vanijya (P.)
Section 457 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 483 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Navalkha & Sons vs Sri Ramanya Das & Ors on 27 October, 1969
It was further contended that the offer made by the appellant is 10 per cent more than the offer made by the 12th respondent and in fact to show the bona fides, the appellant was ready to deposit 20 per cent of the total bid amount immediately. Commenting about the huge expenditure that is involved, the learned Counsel also submitted that an undertaking was given by the appellant that in the event of fresh auction being ordered, he would start his offer with Rs. 1,93,50,000. It was further contended that at any rate, this offer was made before confirmation and before deposit and keeping in view the principle that in a company Court sale, every endeavour should be made to get the best price out of such sale, in the light of the bona fide offer made, the learned single Judge had totally erred in dismissing the applications instead of allowing them. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on Navalkha & Sons v. Ramanya Das , Divya Mfg. Co. (P.)
The Companies Act, 1956
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996
18. The formation of cartel and preventing outsiders from participating in the process of public auctions, definitely is an unhealthy trend. Tactics to monopolize the participation in the auctions so as to avoid outsiders from participating should be definitely deprecated since it will have an impact on securing the reasonable market value by sale of the assets of the Company in liquidation. The trend of monopolizing purchases at Company Court sales definitely may have to be deprecated to maintain healthy competition at auction sales or even at sales by private contract, as the case may be. Suffice for us to state that the power of sale by private contract is to be exercised sparingly. The decision to be taken in this regard should be based on sound discretion and reasons and definitely it cannot be a fanciful one. In the decision referred in Divya Mfg. Co. (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra), the Apex Court while dealing with setting aside of Company sale on offers received subsequent to confirmation of sale, when higher offer was received before possession was handed over or sale deed was executed, held that an application to set aside the sale can be permitted. The Apex Court, in fact had stated: