PREMIER INSURANCE COLTD Vs. DAVANAGARE COTTON MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(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 purpose. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants appear to be right in their contention that it would have been proper to have advertised the sale by making more than one insertion in the papers concerned. NO doubt this is being wise after the event. We ar mindful of the fact that we should not lightly refuse to confirm as sale on inadequate grounds and thus deprive the bidder of the fruits of his bid made in pursuance of an order of this court. We are equally, if not more, anxious to protect the interest of the creditors, particularly the unsecured creditors. In the circumstances of this case we are convinced that there is no chance of the bid going down if the property is re- auctioned. the amount realised from the auction held is just sufficient to pay off the secured creditors and the secured creditors (particularly the State of Mysore) are interested in seeing that the bid does not go below the mark reached on the last occasion.

(3.) I agree with my learned brother that the contention of Sri V.L. Narasimha Murthy, challenging the maintainability of the appeal is without force. Section 483 of the Indian Companies Act provides for an appeal against every order passed or decision made by the court in the exercise of its ordinary jurisdiction. The order under appeal is one such.