1924 (3) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t-matter of a suit before the Court, and directing a re-sale. What happened was, the Receiver, who had been appointed in the suit, was directed by the Court to sell by public auction the lease of certain lands in suit for a year. The conditions of sale were printed and the printed leaflets were circulated. The Receiver held an auction in which the appellant before us, Rathnasami Pillai, was the hi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The Receiver is an Officer of Court and whatever powers he exercises are delegated powers of the Court which the Court expressly gives him. He has no nowers except what the Court grants him. Unless the appellant can show us that in this case the Court has delegated its power of entering into a completed contract with third parties to the Receiver, any action taken by the Receiver cannot be binding .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dro Keshub Roy v. Doorgasoondery Dassee (1888) 15 Cal. 253. The person who asserts that the Court Officer had power to bind the Court by his acceptance of a bid must prove it. The appellant has not been able to refer us to any evidence to show that such a power had been granted by the Court in this case. We must, therefore, hold that the Court bad ample authority as no contract had been concluded .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X