SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(SC) 125

RUMA PAL, B.N.KIRPAL
Riya Travel And Tours India Pvt LTD. – Appellant
Versus
C. V. Chengappa – Respondent


B.N.KIRPAL, J.

(1) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2) THE limited question involved in this appeal is whether the offer which was made by the appellant who was an auction-purchaser would be valid indefinitely or not.

(3) A suit was filed by Respondent 2 for recovery of money against Respondent 3 and a Receiver was appointed. After the decree was passed and even during the pendency of the appeal, under orders of the court the Receiver invited offers for the sale of the property of the judgment-debtor. The appellant made an offer for the purchase of the property. The offer of the appellant was that it would be valid for a period of three months from 13-2-1999. If the offer was not accepted the earnest money was to be returned and if the offer was accepted but the sale was not confirmed within three months, interest at the rate of 18 per cent of earnest money deposit of Rs.15 lakhs was payable from 13-5-1999.

(4) IT appears that the matter got delayed and the offer of the appellant, which was the highest offer, was not accepted within the said period. During the pendency of the matter, on 9-4-1999, an order of the High Court recorded that the appella



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top