Recorded representations and concluded auction sale rights cannot be reopened by later unmaintained offers or unsupported legal changes.

A recorded statement by the official liquidator that the premises were needed only for a limited period and would then be vacated bound the proceedings, and later orders could not reopen that settled position without any review or challenge. The court held that an order going beyond the liquidator's report, and relying on an unpleaded change in rent-control regime, was unsustainable. It also held that the auction sale of movables could not be refused confirmation merely because interveners later claimed a higher offer that was not maintained. The impugned order was set aside, possession was directed to be handed over, and the auction sale in favour of the highest bidders was confirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order refusing to hand over possession of the premises and declining to confirm the auction sale of the movables could be sustained, and whether the earlier directions requiring the official liquidator to vacate the premises after the stipulated period bound the parties.

Analysis: The official liquidator had earlier represented to the Court that the premises were required only for a limited period and would be vacated thereafter. That statement was recorded in the order and was not the subject of any review or challenge. The subsequent orders proceeded on the same basis. The later order under appeal went beyond the report submitted by the official liquidator, introduced the effect of the changed rent-control regime without any supporting prayer or report, and effectively reopened matters already concluded. The recorded statement of a party, especially a public officer, bound the proceedings, and the Court could not disregard the earlier judicial record. As the auction of the movables had been held and the appellants were the highest bidders, there was no basis to decline confirmation merely because interveners later professed a higher offer which they did not maintain.

Conclusion: The impugned order was not sustainable. The appeal was allowed, the order was set aside, the auction sale of the movables in favour of the appellants was confirmed, and the official liquidator was directed to hand over possession of the retained premises.

Final Conclusion: The appellants obtained full relief against the refusal to hand over possession and against the non-confirmation of the auction sale, with costs awarded against the interveners.

---