JANARDHANAN Vs. OFFICIAL RECEIVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by one Janardhanan, said to be the Manager of Chandra Oil Expellers, Alleppey, challenging an order passed by the Additional Sub Judge, Alleppey, on a report filed by the Official Receiver, the first respondent herein permitting him to conduct fresh sale of the copra involved in the suit O. S. No. 166/82 in public auction after due notice. The learned Sub Judge directed the Official Receiver to take possession of 200 bags of copra said to be weighing 84.96 quintals involved in the suit. On receipt of the report from the Official Receiver that he took possession of the copra, the learned Sub Judge permitted him to sell the copra after due notice, and deposit the sale proceeds in court. Pursuant to this order, the Official Receiver after due publication and giving notice to the parties, invited tenders from copra dealers and oil millers. Ext. P1 produced in the case is said to be a copy of the notification published by the Official Receiver in this regard and sent to Chandra Oil Expellers, Alleppey, and received by the petitioner who in his capacity as Manager, participated in the auction which was conducted in the fore-noon of July 26, 1982. As per the terms of the notification, the copra in question was to be sold to the highest bidder at 10 a.m. on the said date. On duly opening the tenders received, it was noticed that the tender offered by the petitioner was the highest. The petitioner had quoted Rs. 716.25 per quintal and according to him, being the highest bidder his tender was said to have been accepted by the Official Receiver who was then paid Rs. 10,000/- in accordance with the terms of the notification. The petitioner alleges that thereafter the copra was weighed and he offered to pay the balance amount of Rs. 50,852.60 to the Receiver but as it was late in the evening, the Receiver told the petitioner that the money need be paid and the copra removed only on the next day. The complaint of the petitioner is that instead of releasing the copra to him, the Receiver filed a report to the Court on the next day stating that the market rate of the copra was Rs. 945/- and the rate quoted by the petitioner was inadequate, that one Thara Enterprises had quoted Rs. 850/- per quintal and in the circumstances seeking appropriate direction and orders of court on bis report. It was on this report that the learned Subordinate Judge passed an order as stated earlier.

(2.) Attacking this order, the counsel appearing for the petitioner strongly contended that the order is illegal and vitiated by material irregularities in the exercise of jurisdiction; that the learned Subordinate Judge failed to note that the contract between the petitioner and the respondents has been concluded; that there after it was not open to the Court to set aside the sale and order a fresh sale; that it was without bearing the petitioner that this order was passed; that the price offered by him was reasonable; that the petitioner had entered into agreements with third parties on the basis of this purchase by him and that therefore the order should be set aside and the sale in favour of the petitioner may be confirmed or the matter may be sent back for disposal afresh after hearing all parties.

(3.) Supporting the order of the court below, the counsel appearing for the bank and the Receiver submitted that the offer made by the petitioner has not been accepted; that there was no concluded contract; that this was not an independent sale by the Official Receiver; that he was acting as an agent of the court; that the sale conducted was subject to confirmation by the court; and that therefore the petitioner who does not have any vested right has no locus standi to question the correctness of the order. It was also submitted that it was after hearing all the parties concerned and the Trial Court was satisfied that the price quoted by the petitioner was inadequate that fresh sale was ordered.