AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Y.R. Meena, Acting C.J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Admit.
At the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal today.
The short controversy involved in this appeal is whether the scrap in question was sold in auction sale to the petitioner an appellant. The case of the petitioner an appellant is that in the auction sale, he purchased the property (movable and immovable), which includes the stores of the mill company, and the quotation/offer published on 10.5.2005 was for the sale of the movable and immovable properties of the mill company on "as is where is and whatever there is" basis.
It appears that there was no reference of the scrap lying in the mill company at the time of sale. However, counsel for the petitioner an appellant, by placing on record photographs of the so-called scrap, points out that in fact, it was the old machineries which were kept in the store and therefore, forming part of the stores.
The details of the materials offered in sale Tender No. 1, published on 10.5.2005, with which we are concerned, is reproduced below:
Plant, machinery such as ball room, combing, carding spinning, etc. of the mill, upset price of which, has been fixed at Rs. 88 lacs (Rupees eighty eight lacs only).
Civil constructions (office building, godown, plant, building, residential houses etc.), upset price of which has been fixed at Rs. 54.34 lacs (rupees fifty four lacs thirty four thousand only).
The upset price of store and stock has been fixed at Rs. 20 lakhs (rupees twenty lacs only).
The case of the petitioner an appellant is that these scraps are old parts of the machinery, which is forming part of stores. Photographs are produced on record to support the case of the petitioner that these so-called scraps are old parts of the machineries and lying in the stores.
Admittedly, there was no reference of any scrap in the tender notice, it can also be noticed that offer was made for sale of the movable and immovable properties of the mill company, on as is where is and whatever there is basis, which would mean that all movable and immovable properties of the mill company as existed on the date of the sale was sold in auction. Nothing has been said that any item in the nature of scrap was not forming part of movable or immovable property.
In view of these admitted facts, we see no substance in the case of the respondent that the scraps were not sold in the auction sale. When there was no reference of any scrap, or nothing has been shown from the tender notice, nor it was excluded from the sale of the movable and immovable property of the mill company, there was no justification to say that so-called scrap was not forming part of the sale property. Consequently, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.8.2006, and allow this appeal. The respondents are directed to permit appellant to lift the so-called scrap from the part of the movable/immovable property of the mill company.
The Appeal stands allowed. The Civil Application also stands disposed of.