Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2004 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (10) TMI 326 - SC - Companies LawWhether the applicant, in the circumstances of this case, when it had enjoyed the assets for about ten years on deposit of the purchase price, would be entitled to any compensation at all, or to compensation with an obligation to account for the profits? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. This is not a case where the applicant was deprived of both his money and the property purchased by him. There was, therefore, no failure of consideration. By the subsequent order of Court, the sale was set aside; but during the interregnum, the applicant had the benefit of the assets he had purchased. The other contracting party, the company in liquidation was deprived of the use of its assets. The creditors who held the properties as security were deprived of their right to deal with the security or to enjoy the benefits of the security during the interregnum. In fact, the securities available to the creditors were utilized by the auction purchaser - the applicant. In that situation, the applicant might have the obligation to account for the profits. Certainly, while rendering the main judgment, this Court was conscious of all these aspects while ordering refund only of the purchase price deposited without providing for payment of interest to the purchaser but at the same time leaving it open to the purchaser to work out its claim for the expenses incurred by it before the company court.
|