LexP. SRINIVASA NAICKER versus SMT. ENGAMMAL AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
Iill Birajmoha o .. Gup14 •• n. St.,. •I Ori= W-4H J. IHI 690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. of fact, we are not prepared to allow the pe itioners to raise this point in arguments before us. In the circumstances we rcjl!ct this contention also . . . The I>l;titions therefore fail and are hereby d1em1BBed with costs-one set of hearing costs. Petition# di8mi81ed. P. SRINIV ASA NAICKER v. SMT. ENGAMMAL AND ANOTHER (K. N. WANOHOO and J. C. SHAH, JJ.) ln•oli .. ncg-Sak of iMol•enl'a properly bv offeial Rtui•ier -.A.ppeat-Grouncia /or aetting aaicie IM aa/e-Reoiaio,.__lfigh Courl'1 juriaciiclion to inl<rfere wilh the ordtr of Diatricl Jwlgt- The Provincial Inaolooncy A.cl, 1920 (Vo/ 1920), aa. 59(a), 68, 75. The official receiver put the properties of the inaolvents N and his wns for sale, which were subject to mortgage. The propcrlics were ultimately knocked down to the appellant whose bid was the highest. The first respondent made an avplication under s. 68 of the Provincial Insolvcnty Act, 1920 which was allowed by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that the price fetched was very low. On appeal under s. 75 of the Act the District Judge, inter alia, held that the price fet- ched wao not low. In revision under the proviso to 1. 75 of the Act, the High Court did not consider whether the order of the Discrict Judge wao according to law but accepted an offer made by the first respondent and allowed the revision. petition. lleld, that the power of che court under s. 68 is a judicial power, and must be exercised on well rccogni~d principles, justifying interference with an act of the receiver which he is empowered to do under s. 59(a) Provincial lnwlvency Act, 1920, and the courc mu•! not arbilrarily set aside a sale decidecl upon by the official receivor, unless there are good judicial grounds to interfere with the discretion exerci~ hy the official receiver, for example that there was fraud or collusion between the receiver and the insolvent or intending purchaser, or the courl is of the opinion that there were ir- regularicies in the conduct of the •ale which might have affected the price fetched at the sale, or price was low as to justify the Court to hold thac the property should not be sold at that price. l (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 691 The High Court had therefore to see whether the Sub- Judge's order wa• justified on these grounds and whether the. District Judge made any mistake in law in reversing that order otherwise the High Court cannot interfere in revision under the proviso to s. 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, for the High Court's jurisdiction to interfere arises only if it is of opinion that the District Judge's order was not according to law, and only then it can pass such order as it may think fit. , C!vIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 274 of 1959. Appeal by special lE>ave from the judgment and order dated July 27,1956, of the Madras High Court, in C.R.P. No. 90of1955. N. 0. Chatterjee, R. Ganapathy Iyer and G. Gopalakrishnan for the appellant. K.N. Rajagopala Sastri, R. MahaliniJa Iyer and M. 8. IL Aiyengar, for respondent No. I. 1960. November, 28. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave in an insolvency matter. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are .these. S. V. N. Nanappa Naicker and his sons were adjudged in- solvents on an application of Smt. Engamma! (here- inafter referred to as the respondent). They had preferred an appeal before the High Court of Madras but it was dismissed on April 17, 1953. Thereafter the official receiver took steps to sell the property of the insolvents, which con~isted of two lots, the first lot comprising 145 aores 10 cents of dry land and masonry house, and the second lot, 8 acres and odd of dry l1md. Both these properties were subject to mortgage. The official receiver fixed September 28, 1953, for sale of the properties by auction. Fifteen of the creditors were present when the sale by auction took place, including the son of the respondent. No request was made on that day by anyone for postponing the sale and consequently bids were made. The highest bid for lot 1 wllB of Jf!Ol P. Srinirxuo Naiektt v. Bmt. Enl4fllmal WatkhooJ. JHJ P.BritrUJOS4 N~eUt Y. Sml. Entammal Wcwhoo J. , 692 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1~2] SUPP. Ra. 4500/· and the highest bid for lot 2 was of Rs.70/-.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.