Dharam Rao Vs. Shankarappa

.....apply under order 21 rule 90 c.p.c. to make an application for oetting aside the sale. order 21 rule 90 c.p.c. would come into play only when the sale is vitiated by irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale (para 8) - industrial disputes act (14 of 1947) section 2(k): [h.n. nagamohan das, j] jurisdiction of industrial tribunal management contending that respondents are not its workman and are working as contractual labour - whether the said plea ipso facto takes away the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal held, no. the dispute between the parties squarely falls within the definition of industrial tribunal under section 2(k) of the industairl disputes act. the tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case and by following the law laid down by the apex copurt has rightly held that it is having jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the dispute between the parties. no justifiable ground to interfere with the reasoning of the tribunal. there is no substance and merit in the contention of the management that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the dispute between the parties. indian evidence act, 1872 section 116; promissory estoppel ;[h.n. nag mohan das, j] whether applies in labour jurisprudence? held, no. firstly the doctrine of estoppel is not applicable to labour jurisprudence. contention that the workmen are estopped from contending that they are not contrct labourers. the report submitted by a sub-committee will not operate as estoppel on the rights of workmen in question. - rule 85 clearly says that while calculating the amount to be so paid into court, the purchaser shall have the advantage of any set-off to which he may be entitled under rule 72. therefore, rule 85 of order 21 c.order 21 rule 85 - rule applies also to decree-holder is mandatory -- if purchase money not deposited within 15 days sale becomes null and void -- court bound to order re-sale.rule 85 clearly says that while calculating the amount to be so paid into court, the purchaser shall have the advantage of any set-off to which he may be entitled under rule 72. therefore, rule 85 of order 21 c.p.c. applies equally also to the decree-holder. it is a mandatory provision even though the auction-purchaser might be the decree-holder what rule 85 of order 21 c.p.c. prescribes is that if the decree-holder. is entitled to any set-off, he must deposit the remaining amount within 15 days from the dace of sale. but it does not enable him to deposit the money as and when he pleases.... the deposit not having been made within the statutory limit of 15 days, the court is bound to order re-sale because the sale already conducted being in violation of rule 85 is null and void.it is not necessary either for the judgement-debtor or for any one even to apply under order 21 rule 90 c.p.c. to make an application for oetting aside the sale. order 21 rule 90 c.p.c. would come into play only when the sale is vitiated by irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale (para 8)