Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) The plaintiff is Civil Suit No. 35 of 1998 has taken out this application dated September 19th, 2003; it has been taken out for the following reliefs: "(a) The offer made by Bharat Steel Syndicate to purchase the said equipments be directed to be accepted by the learned Receiver; (b) The sale of the equipments to Bharat Steel Syndicate be confirmed by this Hon'ble Court; (c) The Receiver be directed to pay the purchase price to Magma Leasing Limited and Magma Leasing Limited be directed to appropriate the same in pro tanto satisfaction of its dues; (d) Upon delivery of possession of the said equipments to the purchase (sic) the Receiver be discharged; (e) Cost of this application be paid by the respondents; (f) Such further or other order or orders as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper." The facts as appear from the application and the affidavits filed in connection therewith are these. In January 1998 the plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 35 of 1998 in this Court against the defendants. It was filed, inter alia, (a) for a decree of Rs. 20,50,617-27p; and (b) for a decree for directing the defendants to deliver possession of the equipment hired out by the plaintiff to them under the agreement dated June 30th, 1993. In the pending suit the plaintiff filed an application (G. A. No. 383 of 1998) for appointment of receiver, judgment on admission, and sale of the equipment. By an order dated February 19th, 1998 a receiver was appointed to take symbolic possession of the equipment; by another order dated November 12th, 1998 the defendants were directed to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 20,56,000/-. As the defendants failed to furnish the security, by order dated December 22nd, 1998 the receiver was directed to take physical possession of the equipment. Then by judgment dated July 15th, 2002 such application was allowed.
(2.) The judgment dated July 15th, 2002 pronounced in the suit is reproduced below: "This is an application praying for various interlocutory reliefs including the judgment upon admission and also appointment of the Receiver. Having heard Mr. Saha and Mr. Menon, learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any defence in the affidavit in opposition. The dues of the plaintiff are more or less admitted. So there is no difficulty to pronounce a judgment as prayed for in the petition. The machines and equipments admitted were leased out to the defendants for their business. It appears and submitted by Mr. Menon that business of the defendants has been stopped. Therefore, there is no use of keeping these machines and instruments in unused condition. At the interim stage I find that an order was passed on 19th February, 1998 whereby the Receiver has been appointed. Therefore, this application succeeds. There will be an order in terms of prayer (a). Accordingly, there will be a decree for a sum of Rs. 20,50,000/-. The Receiver already appointed is directed to take possession of the machines. Accordingly, there will be also an order in terms of prayers (f) and (g). As far as the Salt Lake property is concerned the Receiver shall not do anything else until and unless the application (or pro intern esso is disposed of. The plaintiff will be entitled to interim interest and interest on judgment @ 10% p.m. The sale of the machines shall be effected after making valuation of the properties by advertising in the newspapers once in "The Statesman" and once in the "Bartaman." Costs and expenses for the purpose of sale and valuation shall be borne at the first instance by the plaintiff/petitioner. Decree by drawn up expeditiously. Affidavit in Reply filed to day in Court be kept on record. Receiver and all parties are to act on a Xerox signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertaking." On July 11th, 2002 a sale notice was published in two newspapers. It was published for sale of the machines and equipment. Now this application has been made stating that in response to the sale notice the receiver received only one offer, and the receiver's acceptance of the sole offer may be confirmed with a direction to the receiver to pay the sale proceeds to the plaintiff towards pro tanto satisfaction of its dues. Defendants 1, 2 and 5 are contesting this application, and they have filed an opposition dated October 31st, 2003, it has been replied to by the plaintiff by affidavit dated November 17th, 2003.
(3.) The contesting defendants have stated that the sale in question cannot be confirmed, as it had been conducted without making proper valuation of the machines and equipment, and the conditions of sale had also not been properly settled by the receiver. It is their further case that the machinery and equipment would fetch at least Rs. 4,00,000/-. The plaintiff in its reply has disputed the correctness of the allegations made by the contesting defendants. The plaintiff has stated in reply that the single offer of Rs. 87,000/- was accepted by the receiver with consent of representatives of the defendants.;