9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (4) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by an order of the court to sell certain items of properties and the property with which we are concerned is a building situated in a land on which the company has a kuthakapattom. The court authorized the official liquidator to sell the building fixing an upset price of Rs. 50,000. On 14th November, 1966, the petitioner had filed a petition stating that he was prepared to purchase the building if it is offered for a reasonable sum. When the property came up for sale, the Government Pleader on behalf of Government, the major creditor, stated that the building can easily be sold for a higher amount but as there were no persons to make the bid at a higher figure the sale was adjourned. The court thereafter reduced the upset price to Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficial liquidator. No particulars of the irregularities alleged to have been committed by the official liquidator in the conduct of the sale were given in the petition. The only allegation, if we may say so, in that petition was that the petitioner had made an offer to purchase the building and if that offer had been accepted the sale would not have been made for this amount. It is not a fact that the petitioner had made any definite offer to purchase the building for any specified amount before the sale of the building on 10th February, 1967. What he said in his petition dated 14th November, 1966, was that he was prepared to purchase the building for a reasonable sum. That cannot be construed as an offer by him to purchase the building fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here. No complaint is made of any irregularity or fraud, and it is not suggested that the respondent's final bid was inadequate. Having exceeded the reserve price agreed upon by the parties, it could not be said to be inadequate. The respondent having made an adequate bid and having complied with all the requirements of the court and there being no irregularity he was entitled to have the sale confirmed". To the same effect are the rulings reported in Rowthmall Ncopani v. Nagarmall Madan Gopa [1939] 9 Comp. Cas. 335 , Britidaban Agarwala v. Official Liquidator, Saras-wathi Soap and Oil Mills Ltd. [1952] 22 Comp. Cas. 75, 77 and also in Naoshir J. Dadabhoy v. Official Liquidator [I960] 30 Comp. Cas. 432 . In Brindaban Agarwal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
