Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)
Seema Devi vs The Official Liquidator Patna High ... on 11 May, 2016 cites

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

In Gordhan Das Chuni Lal v. S. Sriman Kanthimathinatha Patna High Court COMP. APP.(DB) No.15 of 2015 dt. 11-05-2016 12/27 Pillai (AIR 1921 Mad 286), 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

Ramaswami Pillai vs Subramania Pillai By ... on 16 December, 1965

This principle was followed in Rathnaswami Pillai v. Sadapathi Pillai [(1925) Mad 218] and S. Soundarajan v. Roshan & Co. (AIR 1940 Mad 42) In A. Subbaraya Mudaliar v. K. Sundarajan (AIR 1951 Mad 986) it was pointed out that the condition of confirmation by the Court being a safeguard against the property being said 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.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Navalkha & Sons vs Sri Ramanya Das & Ors on 27 October, 1969

(DB) No.15 of 2015 dt. 11-05-2016 23/27 Navalkha case (supra), the Supreme Court had only recognised the existence of the discretion in the Company Court either to accept or reject the highest bid before an order of confirmation of the sale is made and it was further emphasized that that once the Company Court had recorded its conclusion that the price is adequate, subsequent higher offer cannot be a ground for refusing confirmation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 100 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

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

This principle was followed in Rathnaswami Pillai v. Sadapathi Pillai [(1925) Mad 218] and S. Soundarajan v. Roshan & Co. (AIR 1940 Mad 42) In A. Subbaraya Mudaliar v. K. Sundarajan (AIR 1951 Mad 986) it was pointed out that the condition of confirmation by the Court being a safeguard against the property being said 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.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 33 - Full Document
1