Recovery of advertisement charges barred where a sale failed because of an interim court order

Advertisement charges incurred for the proposed sale of a company's flats were treated as a consequence of an ad interim order that stayed the sale process during pendency of the company application. Because the sale failed due to that judicial restraint, the resulting expenses could not be recovered from the noticee in separate recovery proceedings. Any liability arising from the interim order had to be considered, if at all, in the proceedings in which the order was made, rather than through an independent claim against the applicant who sought the order.

---

---

Issues: Whether advertisement charges incurred for sale of the company's flats could be recovered from the noticee when the sale failed because of an ad interim order passed on the company's application.

Analysis: The sale did not take place because the Court's ad interim order stayed the process during the pendency of the company application. The failure of the advertisement and the resulting expenses were treated as a consequence of that judicial order. The liability, if any, could have been dealt with while disposing of the proceedings in which the interim order was granted, but not in independent recovery proceedings against the applicant at whose instance the order was made.

Conclusion: Recovery of the advertisement charges from the noticee was held to be unjustified.

---