- (1.) These are two petitions arising out of same proceedings. One is by Puran Chand against the Official Receiver and G. D. Khanna and Sons under S.45-B of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 read with S. 457 of the Companies Act, 1956. In this petition Puran Chand has alleged that property known as " The Bank Godowns" situate at Simla and belonging to the Simla Banking and Industrial Co., Ltd., (in liquidation), was auctioned by the Official Liquidator. The petitioner, who was the highest bidder had purchased it for Rs. 24,600/-. The auction took place on 24-9-1956, and in part payment of the purchase price, a sum of Rs. 4,000/- had been deposited by Puran Chand. This sale was confirmed on 1-10-1956. The liquidator had informed the petitioner on 3-101956 that the sale in his favour had been confirmed. In this petition it is stated that the petitioner desires that the sale be completed by execution of a registered document and by delivery of actual possession to the petitioner. The petitioner also wants the liquidator to satisfy him as to his title to the property, and his right to sell and to execute the sale deed. The petitioner has expressed his willingness to pay the balance of the purchase price when the liquidator is in a position to fulfil his obligations as vendor. No relief has been sought against respondent No. 2, who was the auctioneer who had auctioned the property.
(2.) The Official Liquidator in his written statement has traversed the pleas of the petitioner. He has admitted that the highest bid of the petitioner being of Rs. 24,600/- made by him at public auction on 24-9-1956 had been accepted. He had failed to deposit 1/4th of the purchase money and had only paid Rs. 4,000/- on 27-9-1956. He has not made good his promise to pay the balance of the purchase price. It was stated in the written reply that it was announced at the auction, that with the exception of the room on the ground-floor, the remaining godowns were in the possession of the tenants and that possession would be given to the purchaser by attornment on the part of the tenants. It was pleaded, that having made a default in the payment, the petition was just an attempt to forestall the official liquidator's petition for the enforcement of the default clause and for ordering resale of the property at the petitioner's risk. He also contended that the petitioner had never complained to the Official Liquidator about delivery of vacant possession or as to the execution of the sale deed and his only object was to delay the payment of the balance amount. Regarding the Bank's title, the Official Liquidator stated, that he had always been ready and willing to satisfy the petitioner, who in fact could have no doubt about the title. It was also said, that the demand for actual possession had been made for the first time in this petition and Puran Chand knew, before making the bid, that the godowns were occupied by the tenants and that the successful bidder would not be given vacant possession of the portions of the building which are under occupation of tenants.
(3.) The other petition is by the Official Liquidator purporting to be under S. 45B of the Banking Companies Act read with S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this petition he has asked, that the amount of Rs. 4,000/ deposited by Puran Chand should be forfeited and the property be resold at auction-purchaser's risk and cost. In reply Puran Chand auction-purchaser has submitted that unless the vendor is prepared to deliver actual possession he is within his rights to repudiate the contract. The following issues were framed by Chopra J. on 11-1-1957: 1.Was it announced at the auction as a condition that vacant possession could not be given to the purchaser and therefore the purchaser is not entitled to vacant possession. 2. Is the petitioner entitled to repudiate the sale, in case vacant possession is not delivered to him ? 3. Which party is at fault and what is its effect ? 4. Relief. The above issues may be dealt with together.;