- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) In Suit No.2 of 1966 filed by United Bank of India against Hanuman Foundries Ltd. for foreclosure and sale of hypothecated property, pursuant to a preliminary decree, the Court receiver sold the hypothica at which appellant became highest bidder for Rs.60 lakhs and he paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. The sale was confirmed in his favour on August 29, 1990. Thereafter respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were sought to be impleaded to the suit but denied by the single Judge. On appeal, while impleading them, the Division Bench directed the single Judge to hear the respondents before they are ejected from the property in question by order dated 2-3-1992 which is the subject-matter of this appeal.
(3.) While disposing of the appeal, the Division Bench has pointed out that the sale was vitiated due to the manner in which the single Judge dealing with Company Law matters, passed the orders in his Chamber by observing thus: "It would be sufficient for this Court, if we make our observations to deprecate the way his Lordship took up the matter on various dates subsequent to the passing of the decree and sought to pass various orders relating to sale of the property in favour of the intending purchaser Nani Gopal Paul and others at a price of Rs.60 lakhs, when there were other offers on the field of a higher denomination and magnitude. Judicial property prevents us from making further comments in respect of the manner. His Lordship directed Mr. Gour Roychoudhury, the Receiver to make the choice relating to the intending purchaser with full rights to make a contract with the intending purchaser in the manner it was so done. If there were other offers on the field, the Court would have been vigilant enough to scrutinise such offers whatever they were worth and there ought to have been a due application of mind in this particular perspective. Sadly enough that was not so done in the present case." ;