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

1991 Supreme(MP) 260

D.M.DHARMADHIKARI
BHANWARLAL – Appellant
Versus
BABULAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.PANDEY, M.M.AGRAWAL, M.M.Sapre

D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the auction purchasers, under S. 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). They are aggrieved by the action of the receiver - forfeiting their one-fourth deposit of the bid money for alleged breach of the terms of the auction in not depositing remaining sum of the bid within thirty days of the auction.

( 2 ) THE applicants first approached the Insolvency Court by an application under S. 68 of the Act which was allowed and the forfeiture was set aside with directions to the receiver to return the one-fourth deposit. The receiver preferred an appeal under S. 75 of the Act to the Court of the District Judge, Raipur, who by order dated 4-3-1982 allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the Insolvency Court and upholding the action of the receiver of forfeiture of one-fourth deposit. The auction purchasers have, therefore, approached this Court in this appeal.

( 3 ) BY order passed on 25-3-1974, the partners of firm Jawerchand Thakarsi, Sadar Bazar, Raipur were adjudged insolvent under S. 9 of the Act with effect from 4-10-1972. That was the date of presentation of the petition in the Insolven


















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