Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether stay of the proposed sale of the company's assets pending the appeal and proposed scheme should be granted, and whether the admitted appeal by itself entitled the appellant to a stay.
Analysis: Order 41, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 embodies the principle that mere admission of an appeal does not automatically suspend the decree or the proceedings under it. The grant of stay is discretionary and must be exercised judicially on the circumstances of the case. On the facts, the proposed sale had been widely advertised, only one tender had been received, the purchaser was unwilling to wait if the sale was delayed, and the material before the Court did not establish that a higher or better offer was likely. The suggested scheme was also uncertain and depended on several contingencies, while the largest creditor opposed delay and supported the sale.
Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to a stay of sale; the application was rejected and the sale was allowed to proceed.
Ratio Decidendi: Stay pending appeal is not automatic on admission of the appeal, but depends on a judicially exercised discretion; where no sufficient case for interference is shown and delay would prejudice the sale process and creditors, stay should be refused.