Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.28 seconds)Section 529 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
International Coach Builders Ltd vs Karnataka State Financial Corpn on 5 March, 2003
In International Coach Builders Ltd. v. Karnataka State Financial Corpn. , the Apex Court while dealing with Sections 529 and 529A has held that the Liquidator is the representative of the workmen so far as their preferential right over the secured creditors with regard to the dues are concerned. The relevant observation in para No. 17 is reproduced as under:-
Andhra Bank vs Official Liquidator And Anr on 14 March, 2005
75. Following the ratio of aforesaid judgments, it can be now safely concluded that workmen have to be treated pari-passu with the secured creditors so far as their dues are concerned. They have even the preferential right. But at the same time, there is no provision in the Act or the Rules requiring the Official Liquidator to associate the workmen in the process of sale of the Company. In other words, the interest of the workmen is to be watched by the Official Liquidator only when the sale is confirmed and even thereafter until the stage for distribution of dues to the secured creditors and the workmen is reached. We, are therefore, of the view that the observation made by the learned Company Judge as referred to above, in favour of the workmen considering as one of the grounds for setting aside the sale is contrary to the law. We, accordingly, reverse the said view.
Gurmukh Singh vs Amar Singh on 15 March, 1991
80. We do not find any merit in this contention of the respondent/Union. It is not in dispute that the auction notice was circulated in all the leading newspapers and the auction proceedings were held under the supervision of the Sales Committee. In fact the final bidding was conducted by the Company Court itself. Thus, merely because the appellant and one of its sister concern had participated in the bidding before the Company Court cannot lead to the inference that they had played a fraud upon the Court. It has been correctly pointed out that every Company is a legal juridical person and has a separate distinct identity. There is neither any allegation nor any finding by the Court that the appellant and its sister concern had entered into any arrangement of preventing any other person from participating in the open auction or the bidding before the court. Even otherwise no person has raised any grievance that it was prevented from participating in the auction. The decision of the Supreme Court in Gurmukh Singh's case (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts and has no applicability to this case. In that case two persons had entered into an agreement that one of them would participate in a public auction for sale of evacuee property on behalf of both of them. It was agreed that the property would be shared equally by both of them. The person participating in the public auction gave highest bid and acquired the property and sale in his favour was confirmed. He, however, did not transfer one half of the property to the other person as per the agreement and therefore, a suit for specific performance of contract was instituted. The suit was resisted by the successful bidder stating that the contract was void ab-initio being contrary to the public policy. However, the suit was decreed and the appeals against the same were dismissed by the District Court and the High Court. The Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal by observing that an agreement between A and B to purchase property at an auction sale jointly and not to bid against each other at the auction is perfectly lawful, though the object may be to avoid competition between the two. But if there is an agreement between all the competing bidders at the auction sale forming a ring to peg down the price and to purchase the property at knock out price, the purpose or design of the agreement is to defraud the third patty. In the present case, it is not the factual position. As already observed, the appellant and its sister concern had not entered into any agreement to prevent any other bidder to come forward and participate in the open auction to avoid competitive bidding. The objection raised by Mr. Nagpal, in our view, is only to raise a storm in a tea cup having no after-effect.
National Textile Workers' Union vs P.R. Ramakrishnan & Others on 5 May, 1983
Navalkha & Sons vs Sri Ramanya Das & Ors on 27 October, 1969
In Union Bank's case (supra), another judgment cited by Mr. Bhandari, when the entire purchase price was paid by the auction purchaser i.e. M/s Indrani Soft Drinks, the Official Liquidator had informed the auction purchaser that the possession will be handed over in course of the day. It was at that stage that the Union Bank of India had intervened on the ground of inadequacy of price and asked for staying of the operation of the earlier order passed by the Company Court confirming the sale. The Company Judge observed that the offer matches with the valuation report and the grievance of inadequacy of the prices cannot be accepted and for this reason the sale was ordered to be given final shape. The grouse shown by the appellant Bank was that the Company's assets were sold at a throw away, price and therefore, the order of confirmation of sale be set aside. Countering the arguments advanced by Bank, the auction purchaser had submitted that inadequacy of price is no ground for interference. However, the gross irregularity observed in the aforesaid case by Hon'ble Supreme Court was that the valuation report was kept as a secret and confidential document and without disclosing valuation report to the creditors and without fixing the reserved price, the properties were auctioned and the sale was confirmed. In this eventuality, the approach of the Company Judge was considered to be unjustifiable holding that it is against the judicial standard and the normal procedure'for auctioning the immovable property of the Company which is to be wound up. Another observation made by the Apex Court was that there was non application of mind to the valuation report.
State Of Punjab vs M/S. Yoginder Sharma Onkarrai & Co. And ... on 17 September, 1996
The other argument based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Yoginder Sharma Onkar Rai and Co. and Ors., (1996)6 Supreme Court Cases 173, can not also be accepted because in that case the controversy related to the auction of liquor vend in the State of Punjab. There is no provision equivalent to Rule 272 of the Rules requiring that the sale by the Official Liquidator or the agent appointed by the Court is subject to confirmation by the Court. There can not be parallel situation between the sale of liquor vend and the present case. Therefore, I regret my inability to read the aforesaid judgment for the purpose of applying the same to the facts of the present case.
Gordon Das Chuni Lal Dakuwala vs T. Sriman Kanthimathinatha Pillai And ... on 11 August, 1920
In Gordhan Dass Chuni Lal Dakuwala v. T. Sirman Kanthimathinaha Pillai, 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 interest 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
This principle was followed in Ratnaswami Pillai v. Sadapathy Filial and S. Soundararqjah, Roshan and Co. 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 cm 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 (Emphasis supplied).