Karnataka Court August 1960 Judgments
Premier Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Davanagare Cotton Mills Ltd. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1960
Reported in: [1962]32CompCas168(Kar); ILR1960KAR1055
Hegde, J.1. I had the benefit of going through the order prepared by my learned brother. I agree with that order, but I would like to add a few words. 2. In deciding whether the sale held should be confirmed or not, the primary consideration is whether the court is satisfied that the price fetched is adequate. This is also the view taken in the decided cases read to us at the time of the hearing. Taking into account the book value of the property sold, valuation made by the experts in the recent past, the quality of the machinery as well as its availability in the market, there are good reasons to think that the price fetched is not adequate. It is pointed out to us that the sale in question had not been adequately advertised. The method and manner of advertisement was decided upon after consultation with the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Hence it cannot be said that there was any omission on the part of the official liquidator. But that aspect is not relevant for our purp...
Tag this Judgment!The Premier Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Davanagere Cotton Mill ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant1; AIR1961Mys1
Iqbal Hussain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order confirming the sale ofthe Kapila Textile Mills, two appeals have beenfiled. A.s both of them deal with the same mattera common judgment is given in respect of both theappeals.2. In a public auction held on 18-6-1960 the Kaplia Textile Mills (hereinafter called for the sake of convenience 'the Mills') were sold for a sum of Rs. 15,25,000/-, the highest hidden being the Deva-nagere Cotton Mills (hereinafter called the purchasers). One of the important conditions of the sale was that it was subject to the confirmation by the High Court, but the said Court is not bound to accept the highest bid. Hence the question of confirmation of the sale came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Company Judge, Sadasivayya J., who confirmed the said sale as per order dated 15-7-1960.3. The gravamen of the charge of the appellants is that the sale price is grossly inadequate --far below the realisable value of the property put up for sale. In support of their...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Annaji Kokatnur Vs. Channabasappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant259; AIR1961Mys259
1. This is an appeal by Judgment-debtor 1, against the order dated 8th October, 1956. made by the Extra Asstt Judge, Bsl-gaum, whereby he affirmed the order passed by the executing Court and dismissed the appeal of the appellant.2. Respondent 1 is the decree-holder who obtained a money decree in O. S. 12/1939 on 28th November, 1940 for a sum of Rs. 1,100. The amount was made payable by instalments of Rs. 200 each and the first instalment was made payable on the 15th February, 1941. The decree also contained a default clause. The decree-holder gave a darkhast on 13th June, 1944 but this darkhast came to be dismissed on the 25th July, 1944. In the meanwhile, the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act came to be applied to Athni Taluka where both the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder reside. A second darkhast was filed, being darkhast No. 96/54. During the pendency of this darkhast, an application was made by the decree-holder to the hoard on 29th October, 1945 under the provisions of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›