T VELUSAMY Vs. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR HIGH COURT MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEFORE dealing with all the applications, it is necessary for me to briefly state the history of the case. This court, by order dated February 22, 1991, in Company Application No. 1561 of 1990 in Company Petition No. 28 of 1986, directed the respondent herein (official liquidator) to invite sealed tenders for the sale of the properties belonging to the company in liquidation by publishing advertisements in newspapers. Accordingly, the official liquidator had published necessary advertisements in The Hindu, The Indian Express, Economic Times and Financial Express (all in English) and in Daily Thanthi (Tamil), calling for sealed tenders for the sale of the company's property. The advertisements were published in the said newspapers on March 9, 1991, and March 10, 1991. Pursuant to the advertisements in the newspapers, many parties evinced considerable interest in the purchase of the property of the company (the textile mill) in liquidation. About 115 persons obtained from the office of the official liquidator copies of the terms and conditions and tender forms between April 8, 1991, and April 10, 1991. About 35 persons had visited the factory premises at Pudukottai for inspection of the machinery, etc. Though the initial response to the advertisements was quite encouraging, the official liquidator received tenders for purchase of the company's property only from three persons. He had also received an unsealed cover from one Mehta Traders, captioned "Tender for the purchase of machinery belonging to the Cauvery Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (in liquidation)" . Pursuant to the notice, the representatives of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., the Bank of India and the State Government of Tamil Nadu were present at the time of opening of the tenders in the office of the respondent on April 16, 1991, at 11 a.m. The tenders received by the respondent were opened in the presence of the aforesaid persons. The names of the tenderers and the particulars of the offers received are as under :S. No. Name of the tenderer E.M.D. with Price D. D. No. and offered date Rs. 1. Sri T. S. Velusamy, 1, 00, 000 2, 80, 00, 000 519, Big Bazar Street, D.D. 0825271 Trichirappalli - 8. dated 11-4-1991 2 Senthel Building 1, 00, 000 1, 89, 09, 699 Manufacturing Co. Pvt. P. O. 702316 Ltd., Coimbatore dated 15-4-1991 3. Sri M. K. Thaila 1, 00, 000 2, 62, 00, 000 Mudaliar, D.D. 082570 Trichirappalli dt. 11-4-1991 Brief terms and conditions : Payment of 20 per cent. of the tender amount within ten days and the balance in 30 days from the date of confirmation of sale. The said three offerers were informed that if they so desire, they should be present in court at the time of hearing to make submissions, if any, with the leave of this court in respect of their offers. The Bank of India, the first respondent in Company Application No. 1561 of 1991 filed a memo, stating that they have no objection whatsoever to this court's accepting the offer for a sum of Rs. 2 crores and Rs. 80 lakhs made by T. Velusami, No. 519, Bazaar Street, Trichy, and that he may be called upon to pay 20 per cent. of the offer within ten days. The learned official liquidator filed his further report, dated April 18, 1991, with some enclosures. My learned brother, Maruthamuthu J., after hearing the respective parties, viz., the official liquidator and learned counsel for the Bank of India, Madras and the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., Madras, passed the following order on April 19, 1991: "When the offers were taken up for consideration, Senthel Building Manufacturing Co. (P.) Ltd., Coimbatore, who offered a price of Rs. 1, 89, 09, 699 before the official liquidator expressed their desire to enhance it even beyond Rs. 2, 80, 00, 000 for which Sri T. Velusamy made the offer. Since there is the likelihood of getting increased price for the property in question, the two offerers, viz., Velusamy and Senthel Building Manufacturing Co. (P.) Ltd., are permitted to bid. It is also open to the other offerers who had already made their offers before the official liquidator to participate in the bid and the person who will make the highest bid must be prepared to deposit Rs. 10, 00, 000 as minimum immediately. Post this matter on April 25, 1991, at 2.15 p.m." Company Application No. 452 of 1991 was filed by the applicant herein to confirm the sale of land, building and machinery, etc., belonging to Cauvery Spinning Mills at Rs. 2, 80, 00, 000 being the highest bid received by the learned official liquidator pursuant to the orders of this court in Company Application No. 1561 of 1990. This court has directed the official liquidator to accept the tender of the applicant herein for the purchase of the mill in question belonging to the company in liquidation situated at Cauvery Nagar, Pudukottai, for Rs. 2, 80, 00, 000. In the said order, the applicant has also been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 56 lakhs which is 20 per cent. of the sale price on or before May 3, 1991, and also directed the payment of balance of the sale price on or before June 14, 1991. The order dated April 25, 1991, of my learned brother, Maruthamuthu J., is reproduced hereunder : "Today when the matter was taken up Senthel Building Manufacturing Co. (P.) Ltd., Coimbatore, which offered Rs. 1, 89, 09, 699, is not present in court. No other offerer was present and it is only Mr. T. Velusamy, who has made the highest offer for a sum of Rs. 2, 80, 00, 000 is present and is represented by a counsel. Since there is no other offer excepting for a sum of Rs. 2, 80, 00, 000 by T. Velusamy, which is the highest, the said offer of T. Velusamy is ordered to be accepted subject to his paying a sum of Rs. 56, 00, 000, which is 20 per cent. of the sale price, on or before May 3, 1991. The balance of sale price shall be paid on or before June 14, 1991. Post on June 14, 1991." As directed by this court, the applicant paid a sum of Rs. 56 lakhs on May 3, 1991, to the official liquidator. The earnest money deposit of Rs. 1 lakh paid by the applicant has also been adjusted towards the payment of sale consideration. However, the applicant has not paid the balance of the sale price of Rs. 2, 23, 00, 000 till June 21, 1991, when the official liquidator filed his further report in Company Application No. 452 of 1991.While so, the applicant filed Company Application No. 902 of 1991 to extend the period of payment of balance amount without interest. According to the applicant, he was unable to get credit facilities from the bank and that the Reserve Bank of India has issued instructions for credit squeeze as a result of which he was unable to get facilities from the bank and that he would be able to secure financial assistance from nationalised, banks, when the credit squeeze is lifted. Therefore, he prayed that this court extend the period for payment of the balance of the sale consideration of Rs. 2.23 crores by six months so as to enable him to comply with the directions of this court. The learned official liquidator filed his report dated June 28, 1991. It is stated that the sale was confirmed in favour of the applicant on the basis of tender terms and conditions and, according to clause 21 in the terms and conditions, if the applicant wants to pay the balance of the sale consideration in one or more instalments over a period which is beyond 30 days from the date of confirmation of the sale, then the applicant shall obtain prior permission of this court and for such payment, the applicant should also pay interest at 20 per cent. per annum with monthly rests from the date of confirmation of the sale till the date of final payment. It is relevant to extract certain important clauses in the terms and conditions in the matter of sale of right, title and interest over the lands, buildings and machinery, etc., belonging to Cauvery Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (In Liquidation). Terms and conditions : If the sale in favour of a tenderer is confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court, Madras, the said tenderer shall deposit 20% of his offer towards the sale consideration with the official liquidator within a period of ten days from the date of confirmation by the court, which 20% shall be in addition to the earnest money deposit already deposited in terms of tender conditions. The non-payment of the above amount on confirmation within the period stipulated above will result in forfeiture of earnest money deposit. The defaulting purchaser shall also forfeit all claims to the property or any part of the sum for which it may be subsequently sold. The purchaser after paying the above said 20 per cent. in terms of clause 19 above shall pay the balance sale consideration within 60 days from the date of confirmation of the sale. If the balance amount is not paid within the said period of 60 days all amounts paid earlier by the purchaser shall be forfeited. If the purchaser after paying the abovesaid 20 per cent. of the sale consideration in terms of clause 19 above, wants to pay the balance sale consideration in one or more instalments over a period exceeding 30 days from the date of confirmation of sale, then the said purchaser shall obtain prior permission from the Hon'ble High Court, Madras, for such payments and he shall also pay interest at 20 per cent. per annum with monthly rests from the date of confirmation of sale till the date of final payment. The purchaser should note that any such interest payment will be added to the tender amount quoted by the purchaser and the sale price of the schedule-mentioned properties will in such an event include the tender amount plus interest paid as per the clauses. The purchaser is desirous of making the payment towards the balance sale consideration in one or more instalments over a period which is beyond 30 days from the date of confirmation of the sale. The court may at its discretion give the mill of the company in liquidation on lease to the purchaser who opts to pay the balance sale consideration in instalments till the expiry of the instalment. (underlining is mine) It is also stated in the said report that the Bank of India, which was a secured creditor of the company in liquidation, has filed a suit for the amount due to them with interest at the rate of 18 per cent. per annum in Suit No. 499 of 1989 which is pending before this court. The official liquidator has also stated that in the circumstances if the prayer of the applicant for extending the time for payment of the balance sale consideration is considered, then the applicant may be directed to pay interest at the rate of 20 per cent. per annum with monthly rests from the date of confirmation of the sale. The applicant has also filed Company Application No. 979 of 1991 to permit him to pay the balance consideration of Rs. 2.23 crores in 80 monthly instalments. The official liquidator has filed his report, dated July 5, 1991, and submitted that a perusal of the order dated April 25, 1991, of this court in Company Application No. 452 of 1991 would reveal that this court directed the acceptance of the applicant's offer, subject to the terms of the tender clauses and that it is not open to the applicant to come and say now that the rate of interest at 20 per cent. per annum with monthly rests is exorbitant and that the said allegation in unsustainable in law and on facts. The official liquidator has reiterated that the applicant is liable to pay interest at the rate of 20 per cent. per annum with monthly rests, if he is willing to pay the balance of the sale consideration of Rs. 2.23 crores in 80 monthly installments. Company Application No. 980 was filed by the applicant herein to permit the applicant to take the mill of the company in liquidation on lease. The official liquidator filed his report dated July 19, 1991, enclosing therewith a draft lease deed as annexure A. The said application was resisted by the official liquidator by inviting the attention of this court to three important terms under which the lease can be given, viz., (a) to (c) in the report filed in Company Application No. 980 of 1991. As stated above, the draft lease deed was annexed to the said report for consideration of this court. The last of the Application No. 1180 of 1991 in the series was taken out by the applicant to modify clause 21 of the tender conditions so as to give relief in payment of interest to the applicant. The said Application No. 1180 of 1991 was strongly resisted by the official liquidator. A report dated August 8, 1991, was also filed along with the letter dated April 11, 1991, under the letter head of "N. K. Thaila Mudaliar and Sons" sent by T. Velusamy, the applicant herein, to the Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras.Now, the points that arise for consideration in these applications are whether time can be extended for payment of the balance amount in 80 monthly instalments as prayed for in Applications Nos. 902 and 971 of 1991 and whether a lease of the mill, Cauvery Spinning and Weaving Mills, can be granted to the applicant to run the mill on such conditions as may be determined by this court and whether clause 21 of the tender conditions could be modified so as to give relief in payment of interest by the applicant. I have heard the elaborate arguments of Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned senior advocate, and the learned official liquidator on various dates in Applications Nos. 902, 979 and 980 of 1991 and Mr. G. Subramaniam, learned senior advocate, and the learned official liquidator on August. 8, 1991, in Company Application No. 1180 of 1991. The learned official liquidator has submitted that Company Application No. 1180 of 1991 taken out by the applicant for varying or reducing the rate of interest is not maintainable since this court has already approved the tender terms and conditions and as the tender was invited on these terms and as the applicant has submitted on the basis of the said terms, it is not now open to the applicant to maintain this application at this belated stage. The learned official liquidator has also submitted that it is not now open to the applicant to seek an order for modifying clause 21 of the tender terms and conditions. It is also contended by the learned official liquidator that once the terms and conditions of the sale were approved by this court and once the sale was confirmed in favour of the applicant, it is not now open to the applicant to come forward with an application for modification of the terms and conditions and seek a direction from this court for modification of those terms and conditions and that the applicant is estopped from filing such an application at this stage. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has urged that it is always open to this court to modify any order passed by it earlier depending upon the circumstances of the case and that this court is not so powerless to modify its earlier order, if genuine and acceptable reasons are given for such modification. According to learned senior counsel, in view of the subsequent change in circumstances, the applicant was compelled to seek redressal of his genuine grievance from this court by filing the above applications. The reasons given are :(a) The Reserve Bank of India has not lifted the credit squeeze ; (b) During the course of execution of the work, the applicant had noticed that the plant and machinery, etc., are in a dilapidated condition ; (c) On an examination of the condition of the machinery, it is seen that the applicant would require to spend a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs to bring it to a running condition ; (d) Besides certain machinery is required to be replaced/repaired immediately so as to put it in a working condition and for such purpose, it has become necessary for the applicant to spend another sum of Rs. 64 lakhs to commence production at the earliest point of time. (e) The electricity authorities for high tension power connection had informed the applicant that the erstwhile management had not rectified several defects notified by the Department and that the applicant has to carry out the said defects. In order to carry out the said defects, the applicant invited quotation from a licensed contractor, who estimated the value of rectification work at around Rs. 23 lakhs. (f) The applicant has already paid Rs. 57 lakhs and has also spent Rs. 52 lakhs in cleaning up operations and in obtaining the electricity connection ; (e) With the background of the policy of law and the established practice in various industries, courts, insisting on a payment at 20 per cent. per annum as stated in clause 21 will work out great hardship. Hence, it is contended that it is open to the applicant to point out that the said clause is very rigorous, even though he accepted the said clause at the time of placing the tender. There is much force in the contention of learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. He has clearly pointed out to the court the subsequent change in circumstances after the sale was confirmed in favour of the applicant. In my opinion such a claim for modification has to be considered taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances. It is true that the terms and conditions were accepted by this court and only after such acceptance, this court confirmed the sale in favour of the applicant. But that does not mean or take away the right of the applicant to seek modification of the clauses of the tender conditions or for any further direction or in any way curtail the powers of this court in modifying or altering the terms and conditions depending upon the exigencies of the circumstances. It is an admitted fact that the mill in question was closed for several years and that even private parties like Karumuthu Thiagaraja Chettiar group and the Government of Tamil Nadu were unable to run the said mill due to labour problems and other reasons. The applicant had already deposited, as directed by this court, a sum of Rs. 57 lakhs within the time stipulated in the said order. It is also not denied that he had spent a sum of Rs. 52 lakhs for cleaning up operations and in obtaining the electricity connection. It is also the policy of the Government both Central and State that there must be rapid industrialization which would ensure better employment potential and economic growth and hence the financial institutions owe a duty to extend financial assistance to the sick mills to come up and face the financial crisis to get revamped with the help of such institutions, particularly the mills situated in the most backward areas like Pudukottai. It is also stated that the petitioner would require a further sum of Rs. 50 lakhs to make the mill in a running condition and that the mill was closed for several years. Besides, certain machinery is required to be repaired/replaced immediately, so as to put it in working condition and for that purpose, it is stated by the petitioner that it has become necessary for him to spend another sum of Rs. 64 lakhs to commence production at the earliest point of time. It is further stated in paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in support of Company Application No. 1180 of 1991 that in order to rectify the defects in the electricity connection, he has received a quotation from a licensed contractor, who estimated the value of rectification work at around Rs. 23 lakhs. In my opinion, if the balance of consideration of Rs. 2.23 crores is required to be paid with interest at 20 per cent. per annum with monthly rests as agreed to by the applicant earlier, the applicant would be virtually driven to a desperate corner of facing a serious financial crisis, rendering it impossible to reach the target. Since the mill in question has all along been functioning as a sick mill, it would be just and proper for me to consider the request of the applicant for modification of clause 21 of the terms and conditions of the tender with regard to the payment of interest favourably. In my opinion, no prejudice will be caused to anyone, since it will benefit all the persons interested, if the applicant is allowed to restart the mill soon, which will not only provide employment to more than 650 workers, but also enable the people, who live in that most backward area to be benefited by other means. This will also enable the Bank of India, which is a secured creditor, to get early repayment. In general, the general body of creditors will also be benefited, if I allow the applicant to run the mill on the same terms and conditions as agreed to by him, of course subject to the reduction in the rate of interest. In fact, as stated by the learned official liquidator in his earliest report, even though advertisements were released as directed by this court in very many English dailies, viz., The Hindu, The Indian Express, Economic Times and Financial Express and in Daily Thanthi, calling for sealed tenders for the sale of the company's property, only about 115 persons obtained from the office of the official liquidator copies of the terms and conditions and tender forms and about 35 persons alone had visited the factory premises at Pudukottai and, ultimately, the official liquidator received tenders for the purchase of the company's properties only from three persons, of which the applicant is one. In fact, the applicant has to be appreciated and encouraged for his bold decision in offering his quotation for a mill which was closed for several years and which had faced several problems for all these years. As stated above, the private parties who owned the mill earlier and the Government of Tamil Nadu who owned the mill later were unable to run the mill for several reasons. Mr. G. Subramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, in support of his contention for the reduction of the rate of interest has placed before this court the following authorities: Shashi Kumar v. State of Bihar 1989 (65) CC 379, 1986 (1) SCC 64 ; 1989 (65) CC 379, 1986 (1) SCC 64, Syndicate Bank v. Swadesamitran Ltd. [1990] 1 LW 9 ; 1990 (1) MLJ 19, N. A. P. Alagiri Raja and Co. v. N. Guruswamy [1987] 100 LW 515 ; 1989 (65) CC 758, 1987 TaxLR 1756(Mad), Punjab National Bank v. Udyog Silpa Pvt. Ltd., 1979 AIR(Orissa) 30, P. G. Rao v. Andhra Bank Ltd., 1973 AIR(AP) 245, Soli Pestonji Majoo v. Ganga Dhar Khemka, 1969 AIR(SC) 600, 1969 (1) SCC 220, 1969 (3) SCR 33 and Jaigobind Singh v. Lachmi Narain Ram, AIR 1940 SC 20.Shashi Kumar's case 1989 (65) CC 379, 1986 (1) SCC 64; 1989 (65) CC 379, 1986 (1) SCC 64 was one directed against the judgment and order of the Patna High Court, dismissing a writ petition filed by Sashi Kumar and others/appellants. The history of the said case records how an ambitious plan devised by the Central Government for accelerating and modernising agricultural development in the villages of India and simultaneously providing employment opportunities to engineers and technically trained personnel has come to grief because of an incomplete perception of the conditions necessary for its success. The Government of India propounded a scheme for the creation of Agro Service Centres in rural areas which would provide technical services essential for accelerated rural development and for providing employment to engineers and technically trained personnel. The said scheme was launched by the Government and there was an encouraging response from the unemployed sector of engineers and technical personnel from different parts of the country. In view of the difficulties experienced by unemployed and inexperienced entrepreneurs in the business, it was thought that the period of subsidy on the interest should be increased from three to five years, and the period of repayment itself should be increased up to ten years as in the case of loan and mortgage bank financing. The petitioners (in that case) filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court for declaring the Agro Service Centres of Bihar as sick industries and to secure for them the amounts envisaged in the original scheme with an extension of the period of repayment to a longer term. The writ petition was dismissed by the Patna High Court and thereafter an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court by Shashi Kumar against the State of Bihar and others. The State Bank of India, Patna, has taken the position that as it had advanced the loans to the agro-engineers it was entitled to take appropriate legal measures for obtaining repayment of the loan with interest. The State Bank of India denied its liability to honour the assurances extended by the Government to the agro engineers and insisted on compliance with the terms of the contract entered into by the agro engineers with the bank. It was admitted by the bank that in accordance with the scheme of the Government of India the agro engineers would have been entitled to a subsidy at the rate equivalent to the difference between the normal lending rate of the bank and a base rate of 5 per cent. per annum, which was the maximum rate payable by the agro engineers subject to availability of the subsidy. It was also admitted that the period of subsidy was normally three years, except in backward areas, where the period of subsidy was five years. The petitioner has stated that the applications for claiming interest subsidy were in many cases not submitted. It is further stated that many agro engineers did not pay the instalments in time and in most cases not more than one or two instalments had been paid. In the result, the amount of interest kept on swelling and became payable at compound interest. The petitioners before the Supreme Court contested the position assumed by the State Bank and asserted that the State Bank has been part and parcel of the entire Agro Service Centres scheme and that it was not open to the bank to deny its obligation of providing complete financing under the scheme. As regards the applications for the grant of interest subsidy, the petitioners affirmed that their applications were submitted to the Director of Training in the Bihar State Agro Industries Corporation and that the applications which were directly submitted to the State Bank by the entrepreneurs were turned down on the plea that the individual entrepreneurs were not regular in repayment. The Government of Bihar filed a counter-affidavit. It was stated that on a consideration of the representation of the agro service entrepreneurs the State Government was agreeable, with a view to rehabilitating these centres, to subsidise the interest according to the original scheme, to permit and also try to obtain carriage work for the Agro Service Centres and to appoint them as selling agents for seeds and also to try and obtain for them selling agency for seeds from the National Seeds Corporation, Fertiliser Corporation of India and other institutions concerned with food and fertilisers. It was also suggested that the banks should extend the period of repayment of loans to at least eight years. A suggestion of substantial importance was that inasmuch as the banks were charging penal and compound interest from an entrepreneur who had defaulted in repayment due to non-receipt of subsidy of interest from the Government of India, the penal and compound interest should be waived by the banking department. On the suggestion made amidst diverse versions and conflicting claims, the Supreme Court made an attempt to bring the parties together in order to evolve a solution for salvaging the Agro Service Centres or, in any event, to relieve the agro engineers from the financial burden suffered by them because of their involvement in the scheme. The task of bringing about a settlement between the parties was entrusted by the Supreme Court to Thiru K. Parasaran, the then Attorney-General of India. The proposals made by the petitioners were turned down and there was no possibility of salvaging the Agro Service Centres. The State Bank of India, on the other hand, took the stand that in the case of closure of the Agro Service Centres, it would still insist on payment of the entire amount of interest due on the loans. In the meanwhile, questions were raised in Parliament on the malfunctioning of the Agro Service Centres and the Ministry of Agriculture in the Government of India explained the real position. It was stated that the Minister of State for Agriculture had requested all the Chief Ministers of the States to take steps for strengthening the Agro Service Centres and to expeditiously settle the claims of agro service entrepreneurs to interest subsidy, and also to route the distribution of important agricultural inputs to the areas where those centres were functioning to help them in getting custom hiring work. Besides, the commercial banks were instructed to waive the interest on the loans advanced to Agro Service Centres. However, during the pendency of the case before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court permitted the banks to protect themselves by instituting suits for the recovery of the amounts alleged to be due on the basis of the loans extended by them to agro engineers. However, the Supreme Court, while disposing of the said appeal in the concluding portion of its landmark judgment, has held as under: "We are of opinion that the controversy involved in the case can find an appropriate and satisfactory conclusion if the Government of India addressed itself to this problem, a problem which involves an intimate intermix of legal and sensitive human considerations, and enjoying the unique position the Government of India does in relation to the other two administrations concerned, a just and valid solution can no doubt be found. The matter has already received sympathetic consideration from the Government of India, as is evidenced by the position taken by it during the initial stages of the scheme and the parliamentary and ministerial response made by it in earlier years. We believe it would be tragic, not only for the agro engineers and technocrats in distress today but also for a scheme of great promise, put into effect with much hope, if despair was allowed to defeat it. Accordingly, while we keep these cases pending, we request the Government of India in the Ministry of Agriculture to reformulate the scheme after consultation with all the parties concerned, and giving an appropriate opportunity to the petitioners and other agro engineers and technical personnel covered by the original scheme to represent their case before it. The scheme will take into account two broad divisions, one for revival of the Agro Service Centres where that can be reasonably envisaged, and the other providing for equitable reduction in appropriate cases of the financial obligations of the entrepreneurs concerned to the extent reasonably possible where Agro Service Centres have irretrievably broken down. Upon the formulation of the scheme, it should be submitted to this court for appropriate orders disposing of these cases. We allow time up to December 31, 1985, for the purpose and adjourn the cases meanwhile. A copy of this order shall be sent forthwith to the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India" (underlining is mine).It is seen from the above judgment that the Supreme Court, while directing the authorities to frame a scheme, has directed them to take into account two broad points : 1. Revival of the industry ; and 2. Providing for equitable reduction in appropriate cases of the financial obligations of the entrepreneurs concerned to the extent reasonably possible, where Agro Service Centres have irretrievably broken down (emphasis supplied).

(2.) IN my opinion, the above direction given by the Supreme Court will apply to the present case in all force. A case has been made out by the applicant in this case that the industry which was closed for the past so many years has got to be revived and rehabilitated and the financial obligations of the entrepreneurs concerned to the extent possible has to be restructured.

(3.) THE learned judges while answering the question as to whether the only object of such sale is to fetch the maximum price or whether the court at its discretion having regard to the prevailing socio-economic questions which are involved in a welfare State like India, should apply the law in a pragmatic manner having regard to the realities and interests of the public, held that the only duty laid on the court is to see that a reasonable price is obtained and that the rule is not so rigid that in every case it must be sold in public auction.