JUDGMENT Manash Nath Roy, J. 1. There was a proceeding initiated in respect of premises No.16, Camac Street, Calcutta, on the basis of attachment made by the Commissioner of Sanchaita Investments and due objections were filed. In the proceedings, on or about 25th August, 1986, an order was passed by the Special Division Bench, which was presided over by Anil Kumar Sen, J. (as His Lordship then was), and the said Special Bench directed to serve notices upon M/s. Voltas Ltd. and M/s. W.S. Bhalla, the two tenants of the premises, and consequently, the auction sale of the premises in question, was adjourned till 9th September, 1986. On or about 3rd September, 1988, M/s. Voltas Ltd. and M/s. W.S. Bhalla were heard on the objections as were filed by them. Then, on 5th September, 1986, the Special Division Bench of this Court passed the following order:- "Before we part since the property is going to be sold, it is necessary for us to decide the extent of the tenancy so that there may be no dispute between the purchaser and these two claimants with regard to the extent of their tenancy. Though as between the two appellants now before us, they are claiming tenancy in respect of the building along with the out-houses garages court-yards and gardens we fell no hesitation in holding that such a claim is an extension sought to be made unilaterally by these claimants; The document disclosed by D.S. Bhalla leaves no doubt in our mind that he came in as a sub-tenant only in respect of lower floor flat. His present claim in respect of the garage out house or the court-yard and garden is totally uncalled for. His tenancy extended to cover only the ground floor flat in the building and nothing more. So far as Voltas Ltd. is concerned, they are admittedly the tenant in respect of the first floor flat. They are, however, putting forward a claim to the stair case room in the terrace and the roof. If this claim be conceded we can find no purchaser who could offer just value for the property. Whoever will purchase, will do so to raise multi-storeyed structure. If we hold that the roof too belong to Voltas Ltd., the purchase will not be able to raise any further construction. If this claim be conceded we can find no purchaser who could offer just value for the property. Whoever will purchase, will do so to raise multi-storeyed structure. If we hold that the roof too belong to Voltas Ltd., the purchase will not be able to raise any further construction. In that event the purchasers will be shy incoming forward to purchase on payment of just market price. Our offer to Voltas Ltd. to buyout the property at the highest bid to be offered at the auction has also been turned down. In that back ground and to protect the interest of defraud depositors we should be very careful in determining the merit of the extended claim of Voltas Ltd. They are tenant paying rent of Rs. 400/ and odd per month. The prevailing market rent the first floor flat inself would be more than eight times the rent now being paid. The flat was subject matter of a lease by the then owner Bimala Charan Law covered by a Lease Deed. The Lessee was an officer of B & A Rly. The lease was not renewed since 1945 but was converted into a monthly tenancy (Ex. 8). The letter dated 14.10.1996 (Ex. C) and 8.10.1954 (Ex. D) will show that tenancy was in respect of top floor flat only. The letter dated 8.10.1954 shows a proposal of transfer of such tenancy to Messrs Volkart Brothers. The transfer however was ultimately made in favour of Voltas Ltd. It is true that in three letters dated 11.10.1954, 21.10.1954 and 3.7.1957 written by the laws, reference in made to 16, Camac Street, Upper Flat, room on the roof and the roof. But this does not vally with the description of the tenancy given by the lessee proposing to transfer in their letter dated 14.10.1954 where it is described as top floor that only. In all other corresponding in years that followed and particularly in all letters of attornment issued by subsequent purchasers the tenancy had been described as the upper floor flat only. When the Original Deed of Lease in not forthcoming. In all other corresponding in years that followed and particularly in all letters of attornment issued by subsequent purchasers the tenancy had been described as the upper floor flat only. When the Original Deed of Lease in not forthcoming. When original lease whose interest was transferred to Voltas Ltd. claimed the tenancy to be in respect of the top floor flat only and when Voltas Ltd. accepted the said position although since 1957, a mere cause reference to room on the terrance of the roof in their letters referred to hereinbefore does not establish the extended claim of the present objector moreover neither the rent paid nor the purpose of the tenancy would be consistent with the idea of the roof forming part of the tenancy as claimed. Hence we over-rule the claim of Voltas in this regard and determine the extent of the tenancy to the limited to the first floor of flat only and thereafter, on 9th September, 1986, the auction of the premises in question, took place in open Court and the order as made was as under :- As directed earlier, we held the auction in Court today. Although 14 names of the proposed purchasers were put forward three of them did not turn up. The rest participated and the highest bid of Rs. 4,09,00,000/- was given by M/s. Somdutt Construction Co. of 8, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Calcutta-700 017, through their Advocate Mr. A. Das Gupta. Accordingly we accept the highest bid offered by M/s. Somdutt Construction Co. of 8, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Calcutta 700 017. The next highest bid was offered by M/s. R.S. Chatterjee and D.K. Acharya for and on behalf of M/s. K.N. Dalina Private Ltd., whose offer was Rs. 4,07,00,000-. The highest offer of M/s. Somdutt Construction Co. being accepted. Mrs. Pal, appearing for the purchasers presents a cheque in Court of the Bank of India, in favour of the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments for Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) only in terms of our earlier order by way of earnest money. There is a mistake in the description of the Commissioner and the purchaser undertakes to court to remove the defect and present the Cheque to the Commissioner's Counsel. Mr. Bose in course of the day. The balance of the consideration is directed to be paid by the Purchaser to the Commissioner within 8 weeks from date. There is a mistake in the description of the Commissioner and the purchaser undertakes to court to remove the defect and present the Cheque to the Commissioner's Counsel. Mr. Bose in course of the day. The balance of the consideration is directed to be paid by the Purchaser to the Commissioner within 8 weeks from date. If the purchaser fails to pay the balance purchase price within the time as aforesaid or within such extended time as the Commissioner may give, then. the entire earnest money will stand forfeited and the Commissioner will be at liberty to accept the second highest bid of R.S. Chatterjee and D.K. Acharya for and on behalf of K.N. Dalina Pvt. Ltd. The auction purchaser would be put to vacant, possession of the property purchased, subject to the two tenancies, whose claims have been upheld by this Court by the .order dated 5th September, 1986 and subject to the terms of the said order. Two tenants, as aforesaid, are directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property purchased by the auction purchaser, save and except to the extent of the tenancies which had already been determined by the earlier order of this Court, as aforesaid. The sale be treated as a sale by Court. All parties including the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments Registrar of Assurances and the purchaser to act on a signed copy .of the minutes of this order an the usual undertaking. 2. It would appear from the said order dated 9th September, 1986, that one Somdutt Construction Company became the highest bidder for purchasing the premises in question at a cost of Rs. 4,09,00,000/- along with the tenants therein with 12 ft. common passage and the said Somdutt Construction Company under took to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as earnest money in course of that day i.e., 9th September, 1986. But, there was a failure on behalf .of the said Somdutt Construction Ca. to deposit the earnest money within the time as stipulated and as such, on 10th September, 1986, the concerned Division Bench issued a contempt Rule against one Shri B. Chattrath, representative-cum-constituted Attorney of the said Somdutt Construction Company and on the same day, the said B. Chattrath deposited a pay order bearing No. PO/A/1918/86 dated 9th September, 1986, drawn by New Bank of India, 5, Clive Row, Calcutta in favour of the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments. It would also appear that on 12th September, 1986, M/s. Mukherjee and Biswas, Solicitors, as Advocates for the said Somdutt Construction Company wrote a letter to the Advocate on record for the Commissioner Sanchaita Investments, to furnish and/or hand-over the documents relating to the said premises No.16, Camac Street, Calcutta. 3. It would appear further that on 18th September, 1986, the contemnor in the abovementioned contempt Rule appeared through Shri A.L. Mukherjee, Advocate on record and ultimately the said contempt Rule was withdrawn. In view of the payments already made by Shri B. Chattrath in the manner as indicated before and who also filed a Vokalatnama through the said Shri A.L. Mukherjee. Then on 20th September, 1986, M/s. Mukherjee and Biswas, as mentioned hereinbefore, addressed a letter for and on behalf of their clients Somdutt Construction Company to the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, stating that their clients Somdutt Construction Company of 8, Acharya Jagadish Bose Road and initially of 8, Circus Market Place, Calcutta, had purchased the above property and also informed that the Hon'ble Court of India was pleased to pass an order staying the auction sale of the premises in question and also Intimating, that their clients were eager to purchase the same. 4. Thereafter, the consideration of the matter was adjourned from time. In the meantime, M/s. Voltas Ltd. moved a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, against the order of the Special Division Bench dated 5th September, 1986, challenging the legality and validity of the sale, but in such proceedings, did not make the said Somdutt Construction Company, a party. Notices were of course served upon the auction purchaser, the said Somdutt Construction Company. It would appear that ultimately on 10th December, 1986, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the concerned Special leave Petition of M/s. Voltas Ltd. and upheld the order and judgment dated 5th September. 1986 as made by the Special Division Bench of this Court and while making such order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, was also pleased, to extend the time for depositing the balance amount by the auction purchaser, Somdutt Construction Company upto 15th January, 1987 and on or about 8th January, 1987, the said order was communicated to Somdutt Construction Company by the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, who again asked for payment of the balance amount. 5. 5. Even thereafter, in or about February, 1987, the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments filed another contempt application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the said Somdutt Construction Company, as they did not pay the balance amount as per on in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as indicated hereinbefore. The said contempt application was disposed of on 5th May, 1987 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the presence of the learned Counsel of the said Somdutt Construction Company and the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments. In such proceedings, the small depositors were also represented and after hearing all concerned, the said Somdutt Construction Company was given a further extension of two months to pay the balance amount and in default, it was directed that the auction all held in its favour would Hand vacated and-either a fresh auction of the premises in question, should be held or the second highest bid would be accepted and this Court should decide whether the shortfall with inertest would been recovered from the said Somdutt Construction Company. We state the order as made now by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 5th May, 1987, which was as under:- "We have, heard learned Counsel for the parties. The Commissioner's application is heard. Mr. Gobind Mukhoty appears for the Small Depositors. Counsel for the Somdutt Construction Company says that he has not been served with a copy of the petition. We find that it is not necessary to adjourn the proceedings and to give an opportunity to Counsel for Somdutt Construction Company to take instructions and contest the application. The High Court bad accepted the highest bid given by Somdutt Construction and from out of the bid amount only Rs. 10 lakhs has been deposited and the rest of the money has not been forthcoming. Two months time is allowed from today for depositing the balance before the High Court. In case there is a failure to deposit the amount within the time allowed the auction in favour of the Somdutt Construction Company shall stand vacated. The High Court in its discretion shall decide whether there would be a fresh auction or the second highest bid has to be accepted after the appropriate decision is taken by the High Court. In case there is a failure to deposit the amount within the time allowed the auction in favour of the Somdutt Construction Company shall stand vacated. The High Court in its discretion shall decide whether there would be a fresh auction or the second highest bid has to be accepted after the appropriate decision is taken by the High Court. The High Court shall also decide as to whether the short fall between the highest bid given by Somdutt Construction and the account for which the property would be sold has to be recovered from Somdutt Construction. Similarly the High Court shall also decide as to whether the interest on the defaulting amount should not be recovered from Somdutt Construction. In case the High Court finds either on both amounts have to be recovered appropriate steps should be taken to recover the amount." 6. The CMP is disposed of accordingly. We have reproduced the order as subsequent submissions have been made on the basis of the said order and on the contraction and the effect thereof. It should be noted that within the time as stipulated i.e., 5th July, 1987, the said Somdutt Construction Company did not pay the balance amount and whereupon on 9th July, 1987, the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments filed a report before the Special Division Bench of this Court, asking, inter alia, amongst others for re-auction of the premises in question and also for directions upon the said Somdutt Contraction Company, to pay the balance amount as well as interest in terms of the directions as contained in the order dated 5tb May, 1987, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 7. On such reports, by an order dated 23rd July, 1987, the Special Division Bench again directed the issue of notices to the said Somdutt Construction Company and the bidders and thereafter, on 10th December, 1987, second auction sale of the premise in question took place. In such subsequent auction sale, the highest bidder was one Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. of 8, Circus Market Plance, Calcutta-17 and they were represented by Shri R.C. Banerjee, who is admittedly an Assistant in the office of Mukherjee & Biswas. In such subsequent auction sale, the highest bidder was one Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. of 8, Circus Market Plance, Calcutta-17 and they were represented by Shri R.C. Banerjee, who is admittedly an Assistant in the office of Mukherjee & Biswas. It would also appear that the auction sale of the premises in question, was also contemned and on 18th December, 1987 the Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. deposited a pay order vide No. 801530/1530/87 dated 18th December, 1987, in favour of the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments and the said pay order was handed over to the learned Advocate on record of the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments and the same was for Rs. 44,20,000/-, which was issued by New Bank of India, Shakespeare Sarani Branch, Calcutta, on the basis of the instructions received from Shri B. Chattrath by debiting an account of the said Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd, After the above payments were made, the said Eastern Proprieties (P) Ltd. from time to time placed their claim for confirmation of the concerned sale and claimed that possession should be delivered to them by the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, on execution of the necessary documents. 8. At this stage, on or about 26th February, 1988, an application was made by Shri Prodip Kumar Goswami, for and on behalf of depositors for the following prayers:- (A) Registrar of Companies. West Bengal be directed to produce all document, papers and records relating to Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. of 8, Circus Market Place, Calcutta-700 017. (B) The Manager, New Bank of India, Shakespeare Sarani Branch, be directed to produce all records to the following pay orders. (i) Dated 18.12.1987 No. 801530/1530/87 on New Bank of India, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta. (ii) Dated 18.1.1988, 801635/61/88 on New Bank of India, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta. (C) If necessary leave be given to the petitioner to issue Subpoena for production of the above documents by the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal and Manager, New Bank of India, Shakespeare Sarani Branch. (D) Somdutt Construction be directed to deposit with the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments difference amount with interest thereon at the rate of 18% being the date of acceptance of the bid submitted by Somdutt Construction. (E) Ad-interim orders in terms of prayer above. (F) Cost. (G) Further and other order. 9. (D) Somdutt Construction be directed to deposit with the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments difference amount with interest thereon at the rate of 18% being the date of acceptance of the bid submitted by Somdutt Construction. (E) Ad-interim orders in terms of prayer above. (F) Cost. (G) Further and other order. 9. Thereafter, an application for amendment was made, which was allowed and on the basis whereof, a prayer in terms of prayer "H" to the following effect (H) Stay of operation of the orders dated 11th February, 1988 passed by Their Lordships Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. N. Roy and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. Mukherjee in the above matter, was allowed. 10. From a reference to the application under consideration, It would appear that the depositor petitioners, through the said Shri Goswami claimed that the price of the premises in question, in the second auction sales as mentioned hereinbefore, has been at a rate, which was much below and lower than the earlier auction price as fetched. It was claimed that since the deposit of were primarily affected by reasons of such low price, they bad caused enquiries to be initiated and thereupon, they have found from the records of the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal, that the Dame of the said Eastern Properties (P) Ltd., having its Registrar Office at 8, Circus Market Place, Calcutta which incidentally was the subsequent auction purchaser, had been struck-off from the concerned register on 6th January, 1959, since the said Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. had become defunct. In the application in question, after stating the relevant facts in respect of the two action sales, it has been claimed that even on the second bid, which was held by this court, two bidders were M/s. Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. and Somdutt Construction Company, both of 8, Circus Market Place, Calcutta and both of them were represented in Court by the same person viz. an officer of Somdutt Construction Company, and who had engaged M/s. Mukherjee and Biswas, Solicitors and advocate on record. It was also pointed out that R.C. Banerjee, an advocate of that firms, was also engaged as advocate on record Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. and all instructions in Court, on behalf of the two companies were given by the same person viz., Shri Brij Chattrath. 11. It was also pointed out that R.C. Banerjee, an advocate of that firms, was also engaged as advocate on record Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. and all instructions in Court, on behalf of the two companies were given by the same person viz., Shri Brij Chattrath. 11. It has also been indicated in the application in question, that on 11th February, 1988, the proceedings came up in the list, when the Counsel of Eastern Properties (P) Ltd., on instructions received from the said Shri R.C. Banerjee wanted as mentioned hereinbefore, a direction that possession of the premises in question, be handed over to the client of the said Shri Banerjee and at that time Counsel appearing for the depositors pointed out the fact that the said Eastern Properties (P) Ltd., had become defunct and its name was also struck-off from the register. It has been pointed out further that at that time, the Counsel as instructed by the said Shri Banerjee, stated that a partnership firm was the purchaser and not the Limited Company, whereupon, it has been stated, that all lawyers concerned, who were then appearing for the depositors, were taken by surprise and as such, they could not give effective replies at once. 12. It has also been pointed out that it was really significant that no representative of the said so-called Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. was present in Court and the same person, who had been instructing M/s. Mukherjee and Biswas well as Shri R.C. Banerjee was present in Court. By this, the depositors wanted to mention the name of the said Shri B. Chattrath. It has also been alleged that Somdutt Construction Company and their henchmen came to know about the enquiries made at the office of the Register of Companies, West Bengal by the depositors or on their behalf and as such caused the balance amount to be paid in the name of Eastern Properties and obtained receipt in the name. There in no doubt that the first payment as mentioned hereinbefore, was made on behalf of Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. The said fact would also appear from the two receipts as disclosed in this proceeding. There in no doubt that the first payment as mentioned hereinbefore, was made on behalf of Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. The said fact would also appear from the two receipts as disclosed in this proceeding. The depositor petitioners have also referred to a letter dated 18th January, 1988, from Shri R.C. Banerjee to Shri Samar Kumar Basu, the learned advocate appearing for the Sanchaita Investments, for the purpose of establishing the facts of making payment of the subsequent amount in the name of Eastern Properties and it has been claimed further, that the subsequent receipt was managed to have been obtained, as soon as the Somdutt Construction Company or its group received the information about the enquiries initiated by and on behalf of the depositors. 13. In the facts of this case, it was claimed that the sale in question had really taken place in favour of or at the instance of Eastern Properties (P) Ltd., and none but the said Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. could be in a position to obtain possession of the premises in question. It has also been alleged that the premises in question, was really purchased now and in the subsequent action by Somdutt Construction Company indirectly and that too clandestinely and for purchasing the property at a much lower price by passing the effect of the ultimate order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 5th May, 1987. 14. It was also alleged that due to machination of the said Somdutt Group of Companies, the premises in question, this time was sold at Rs. 2.21 crores and such sale to the said Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. was really a sale to Somdutt Group of Companies and in fact, there was no trace of either Eastern Properties or Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. at 8, Circus Market Place, Calcutta. It has also been alleged that upon enquiries made at the address as mentioned above, no trace of the said Companies or the alleged firm could be found out and in fact, no official documents could be looked into or obtained to support the existence of the alleged firm Eastern Properties. It was finally contended that the said Somdutt Group of Companies got the second auction sale as initiated and held and sought to take possession of the said premises at a lesser value by misleading this Court. 15. It was finally contended that the said Somdutt Group of Companies got the second auction sale as initiated and held and sought to take possession of the said premises at a lesser value by misleading this Court. 15. We have indicated earlier, the prayers as were made in the said application, which as would appear from the affidavit dated 8th March, 1988, filed by on Shri Jatirmoy Chakraborty, clerk to Probal Kumar Halder, advocate was served in the office of the advocate on record, M/s. Mukherjee & Biswas, Solicitors and advocate for the Somdutt Construction Company and which notice was also duly received by an officer of the said M/s. Mukherjee & Biswas of 24th February, 1988. It would also appear from the said affidavit, that the application and notices were also served on Shri R.C. Banerjee, for Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. or Eastern Properties, at his office at 10, Old Post Office Street, Calcutta-1 and apart from that, the said application and so also the concerned signed copy of the minutes dated 25th February, 1988, for necessary production of the records were served on the Manager, New Bank of India, Shakespeare Sarani. Calcutta. The deponent of the affidavit has also stated that he has also served the concerned application on Shri Samar Kumar Basu, the learned Advocate appearing for the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments. In addition to the above, the deponent has also stated that the copies of the concerned minutes as mentioned hereinbefore, were also served on the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal at his office at Nizam Palace, Calcutta. 16. In addition to the above, the deponent has also stated that the copies of the concerned minutes as mentioned hereinbefore, were also served on the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal at his office at Nizam Palace, Calcutta. 16. Thereafter, the intervenor, Shri Prodip Kumar Goswami has filed a supplementary affidavit, which was affirmed on 11th March, 1988, wherein, he has stated that on the day the notice and the concerned minutes dated 25th February, 1988, as mentioned hereinbefore, were served on the said Shri R.C. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. or Eastern Properties, be mentioned the matter for clarification and/or directions regarding the interim order which was passed by us earlier and Shri Jayanta Mitra, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. i.e. the present auction purchaser, for recording that this Court be pleased to record that the money which was paid by the said auction purchaser by two pay orders in favour of the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments for purchasing the premises, was not the money which came from Somdutt Construction Company Ltd. In fact, such was the claim made by and on behalf of the depositors. 17. It has also been indicated that on that date, this Court was pleased to issue directions in presence of the said Shri Mitra to file an affidavit-in-opposition within a stipulated time and gave directions for filing the reply and hearing of the matter. It has been stated that the depositors have now been informed by the letter of their learned Advocate dated 29tb February, 1988, as addressed to the said Shri R.C. Banerjee, Advocate on record for the said Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. Eastern Properties, that Shri Jayanta Mitra, the learned Counsel for the said Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. accepted the fact that the money paid by Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. Eastern Properties, for purchasing .the flat in question, was the money which came from Somdutt Construction Company Ltd. In fact, this information would appear from Annexure "A" to the affidavit, which Shri Probal Kumar Halder had sent to the said Shri R.C. Banerjee. It has been stated that on 1st March, 1988, another letter was addressed by said Shri Banerjee, to the said Shri Halder, in answer to the letter as mentioned hereinbefore, that his client Eastern Properties have instructed him not to enter in any correspondence with the said Shri Halder and accordingly, the validity of the contents of the letter dated 29th February, 1988, were not accepted. It would also appear that on 2nd March, 1988, the Advocate on Record of the depositors issued another letter to said Shri Banerjee, Advocate on record for the Eastern Properties (P) Ltd., stating that since they did not file any affidavit-in-opposition as per the directions contained in the order dated 25th February, 1988, it was presumed that they were not going to oppose the concerned application. It is needless to point out that on the same day the said Shri Banerjee had issued a letter for the learned Advocate concerned, appearing against him for giving consent extension of time to file his client's affidavit-in-opposition. Such prayer, as mentioned in the letter dated 9th March, 1988, from the said Shri Halder to the said Shri Banerjee, was sought to be opposed and in the supplementary affidavit under consideration, they had made a prayer, that no further extension of time for filing affidavit-in-opposition by Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. Eastern Properties, should be allowed and directions were asked on Somdutt Construction Ltd. and/or Eastern Properties (P) Ltd., to pay the difference amount of the second auction sale. 18. It would appear from the proceedings now that on 21st April, 1988 an order was made by this Court, for production of various documents and records on or by 4th May, 1988 and by his affidavit dated 12th May, 1988, Shri Charanjit Kumar Chandra, Senior Manager, New Bank of India, Hauz Khas Branch, New Delhi, after narrating certain circumstances and events stated that the following informations papers:- (1) Amount of Rs. 10,01,015/- was debited on 8.9.1986 to the Current Account No. 902 of M/s. Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. 56-58, Community Centre, Kash Kailash, New Delhi. (2) Photo copy of account openif1g form. (3) Photo copy of the debit voucher. (4) Photo copy of the letter if request of the party. (5) Duplicate credit advice of Rs. 10,01,015/- was debited on 8.9.1986 to the Current Account No. 902 of M/s. Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. 56-58, Community Centre, Kash Kailash, New Delhi. (2) Photo copy of account openif1g form. (3) Photo copy of the debit voucher. (4) Photo copy of the letter if request of the party. (5) Duplicate credit advice of Rs. 10,00,000/-, were sent to the Clive Row Branch of the Bank, apart from indicating that they bad already sent to the said Clive Row Branch, the photocopy of the letter received from M/s. Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. on the basis whereof, instructions were given to the said Clive Row Branch to issue the demand draft in question and thereafter, the said Clive Row Branch, by their letter of 23rd April, 1988, informed, that the following documents:- (1) Photo copy of debit voucher dated 8.9.1986 for Rs 10,01,015. (2) Photo copy of account opening form of Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. (3) Photo copy of letter dated 8.9.1986 of Somdutt Builders Ltd. (4) Duplicate credit advice for Rs. 10,00,000/- dated 8.9.1986, were received by them. It has also been stated that since the Branch at New Delhi was instructed to send the originals of the concerned papers, on 28.4.1988, those original were sent. 19. Since this Court was not satisfied initially, so there was a further direction on the deponent of the affidavit, to show cause by 5th May, 1988 and it was his case, that he reached this Court at a point of time when the matter was called on and the time to such show-cause was extended till 12th May, 1988. The deponent has also stated that for circumstance beyond his control, the default, in any, in this case, to comply with the order has crept in and he never intended to show or really have shown any disrespect to any orders passed by this Court. 20. There was an affidavit dated 16th March, 1988, filed through one Shri Ashoke Jayadka, one of the partners of Eastern Properties, having its principal place of business at 8, Circus Market Place, Calcutta-17. He has stated that the other partners are Smt. Binita Chattrath of 8, Circus Market Place, Calcutta-17 and Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd., having their registered office at 8 Acharya Jagadish Bose Road Calcutta-17. He has stated that the other partners are Smt. Binita Chattrath of 8, Circus Market Place, Calcutta-17 and Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd., having their registered office at 8 Acharya Jagadish Bose Road Calcutta-17. It was his claim that in the second or subsequent auction sale, lesser number of bidders were attracted as the premises in question, was encumbered with existing tenancies. He has also pointed out that Somdutt Construction Co. was permitted to bid in this auction although, earlier, it had backed out from the earlier bid as offered in the first auction. The deponent has stated that Eastern Properties engaged Shri R.C. Banerjee, advocate to participate and bid in the second auction and the said Shri Banerjee had obtained his Vokalatnama from Eastern Properties and the deponent himself has executed the same. In any event, he has denied that the said Eastern Properties was not involved or concerned in the concerned auction sale or they had and any connection with Somdutt Construction Co. The deponent has also indicated the reasons why the second or subsequent auction sale of the premises in question, could not fetch price as higher or near to the first auction sale and he said, that even the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments or the depositors were unable to find any such buyer, offering a price more than the earlier auction price and that being the position, the highest bid of Eastern Properties, for Rs. 2.21 crores was accepted. It has been stated that through over-sight or mistake the name of M/s. Eastern Properties was recorded as Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. and he has also pointed out that the Vokalatnama a granted by M/s. Eastern Properties to the said Shri Banerjee, before the second bid took place, was in the name and on behalf of Eastern Properties and not Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. which again was signed by the deponent, as a partner. It was his case the that Eastern Properties is a partnership firm and has no connection with Eastern Properties (P) Ltd., which has been claimed to be a defunct Company. It was further asserted by deponent that in the facts and circumstance of the case, the looking into the records of the Registrar of Companies, would be of no help or any assistance. It was further asserted by deponent that in the facts and circumstance of the case, the looking into the records of the Registrar of Companies, would be of no help or any assistance. It was his further case that on the date in question and as mentioned in the petition nobody was present in Court to instruct or anybody actually instructed the said Shri Banerjee. All other allegations as made, regarding the collusion between the subsequent purchaser and Somdutt Construction Company or the Somdutt Group of Companies, were denied and claimed to be motivated and false. 21. The deponent has further pointed out that since Somdutt Constriction Company was allowed to bid in the second auction, the question of purchase of the premises in question, by them indirectly would not have any bearing on the merits of the case and in any event, such allegations were denied. It has also been stated that the concerned funds for the necessary purchase was provided by Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd., as one of the partners of Eastern Properties and not by Somdutt Construction Company. It has also been denied that the concerned pay order as mentioned hereinbefore, really came from Somdutt Construction Company and it has also been reiterated that Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd., as one of the partner of M/s. Eastern Properties, have provided the funds for the concerned pay order and in such view of he matter, it has been claimed that this Court should be pleased to direct handing over of the possession of the premises in question immediately M/s. Eastern Properties. In fact, it has been stated that the delay, if any, would cause or is causing to said Eastern Properties, a suffering to tune of Rs. 11,000/- per day. 22. In fact, it has been stated that the delay, if any, would cause or is causing to said Eastern Properties, a suffering to tune of Rs. 11,000/- per day. 22. In his reply dated 22nd March, 1988, Shri Pradip Kumar Goswami has reiterated that on enquiries, he has learnt that there is no firm in the name of Eastern Properties, carrying on business at or from premises No.8, Circus Market Place, Calcutta-17 and he has stated to have learnt also on such enquiry that one Smt. Vinita Chattrath is carrying on business from that premises and Shri Brij Chattrath, at all material times looked and still is looking after the matters on behalf of Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. and the said Shri Chattrath gave instructions to the concerned New Bank of India, for issuing the Pay Order for Rs. 1,76,80,020/- and that the letter dated 18th December, 1987, was also written by the said Somdutt Builders Private to the Manager of the New Bank of India instructing to issue the other Pay Order for Rs. 44,00,000/- in favour of the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments. It was also the case of the said Shri Goswami that the said Brij Chattrath was also an authorised signatory of Somdutt Builders Pvt. Ltd. and bad signed a cheque for Rs. 1,76,80,000/- in favour of New Bank of India and also endorsed his instructions on the reverse of the concerned cheque, directing the said Bank to issue the Pay Order for the amount in question, in favour of the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments. The said Shri Goswami has also claimed that the said Smt. Vinita Chattrath and Shri Brij Chattrath belong to the same family and the other amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- which was deposited pursuant to the order of the Court dated 9th September, 1986, was also made over to the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments by the Pay Order, being AO/A-1918/86 of that date and drawn by the New Bank of India, Calcutta which was made over by the said Shri Brij Chattrath and that too under his covering letter of the same date. 23. 23. The deponent of this affidavit bas also indicated that admittedly there was no partnership deed for the firm in question and as such, the said firm or the partnership as claimed, was nothing bus a sham one and it was his specific and categorical case that there was or has been no difference between Somdutt Construction Co. and Somdutt Builders Private Ltd. and all, along, the said Shri Brij Chattrath was looking after the matters in and outside the Court. In fact, it was claimed that the said Shri Brij Chattrath was also present in Court when the auction was held on 9th September, 1986 and so also on the date of subsequent auction. It has further been indicated that the said Shri Chattrath was also present before the Supreme Court, when extension of time for the purpose of paying the balance of the auction amount, was asked for and obtained. It has further been indicated than he said Sari Chattrath, gave instructions in Court, both to M/s. Mukherjee & Biswas, Solicitors and Shri R.C. Banerjee, Advocate, whose other particulars we have recorded hereinbefore. It was further as creation of the deponent that the said Shri Chattrah, personally banded over the cheque for Rs. 10,00,000/- and also gave necessary instructions, for having the subsequent Pay Orders as mentioned earlier, issued and till 17th March, 1988, no Vakalatnama was either given to or filed by the said Shri R.C. Banerjee on behalf of his clients Eastern Properties. 24. It has further been claimed and reiterated that the firm Eastern Properties was not in existence and in any event, the same was nothing but Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. and the said firm Eastern Properties was not at all involved in the transaction or could at all be interested. It has been claimed that the bidding at the second auction by Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. and Eastern Properties, was a pretended and sham one and such course was applied, only to mislead and overreach this Court and as a result whereof, at the time of confirmation of sale, this Court was not aware of the actual facts: and the true nature and character of the bidding. The claim, that though oversight the name of Eastern Properties was recorded as Eastern Properties Pvt. Ltd., was denied and it has been claimed that at the time of the second auction there was no Vakaltnama in favour of the said Shri R.C. Banerjee. It has further been contended and claimed that the entire plan in this case, was hatched up, for the purpose of acquiring the premises by Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd., at a lesser price and to have the earlier orders, including the order of the Supreme Court of India frustrated. It has further been pointed out that there is actually no difference between Somdutt Construction Co. and Somdutt Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. It was also and the categorical claim and case of the defendant, that if possession is at all required to be handed over to the present purchaser or whenever it may be, the same should be on after payment of the difference of the two auction prices and the relevant interest, in terms of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 25. Apart from the above, Shri Brij Chattrath of No.8, Circus Market Place, Calcutta-I7, the constituted Attorney of Somdutt Construction Co., has filed an affidavit dated 31st March, 1988. He bas stated that as such constituted Attorney, he has executed a Vakalatnama on behalf of Somdutt Construction of No.8, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Rd., Calcutta-17, in favour of M/s. Mukherjee & Biswas, Advocates of No. 10, Old Post Office Sired, Calcutta. 26. We have indicated earlier the circumstances in which we had to issue orders and to obtain the informations as asked for from the Hauz Khas Branch of New Bank of India. Apart from those records and documents, various documents and records were produced from the relevant authorities, at the instance of the depositor-applicants, for establishing their case and also for establishing the fact that the identity of the bidders in both the auctions was the same. Let the copies of all the documents and records as were produced on the basis of the basis of the subpoenas issued by the Court, be kept in the records. 27. Let the copies of all the documents and records as were produced on the basis of the basis of the subpoenas issued by the Court, be kept in the records. 27. It would appear from the records that the Vakalatnama on behalf of the Eastern Properties of 8, Circus Market Place, Calcutta-700 017, was executed by Shri Joidka a partner, on 12th November, 1987 and the same was accepted by the said Shri Banerjee on the same day and by a power of Attorney, executed on 6th December, 1986, the partners of Somdutt Construction Company, having their office at 57, Community Centre, East of Kailash, New Delhi-65, appointed Shri Brij Chattrath of 8, Circus Market Place, Calcutta-17, for the purposes amongst others, to bid in the concerned auction for the premises in question and to appear, act and represent them in legal suits/matters/ proceedings and also to sign/institute necessary documents, apart from authorizing him to appoint lawyers/solicitors/advocates, to represent in legar suits/matters/proceedings. It would further appear that the said Shri Brij Chattrath by his letter of 9th September, 1986, handed over the concerned draft for Rs. 10,000,00/- though a Pay Order, drawn by New Bank of India, 5, Clive Row, Calcutta, favouring the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments in respect of the permission question. This amount admittedly, was the first installment which was paid for and on behalf Somdutt Construction Company, pursuant to the bid which they had offered at the first auction sale of the premises in question. It would also appear from a letter dated 2nd April, 1988, issued by the Senior Manager of New Bank of India to their Solicitors M/s. N.C Bose & Company, that the said demand draft dated 9th September, 1988, was issued by the said Bank on account of their Branch office at Hauz Khas, New Delhi and the same was debited to the account of M/s. Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. and the said demand draft was issued as per telephone instructions and telex message of the same day of Shri V.K. Chaddah. Chief Manager of the Hauz Khas Branch of the concerned Bank. It would further appear from a certified Xerox copy, produced in Court, on behalf of the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal on 10th March, 1988, pursuant to the directions as given, that the Eastern Properties (P) Ltd., with the authorized capital of Rs. Chief Manager of the Hauz Khas Branch of the concerned Bank. It would further appear from a certified Xerox copy, produced in Court, on behalf of the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal on 10th March, 1988, pursuant to the directions as given, that the Eastern Properties (P) Ltd., with the authorized capital of Rs. 2,00,000/- filed their Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association on 24th February, 1943, along with the necessary declarations under section 24(2) of the Act, with other relevant documents and particulars as required and the name of the said Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. was struck off from the concerned Register under section 560(5) of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act I of 1956) on 6th January, 1959. In addition to the above records, it would also appear from the annual return of M/s. Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. the Xerox copy whereof was also produced, showing as to who were the constituents of the same and therefrom it was pointed out that one Shri D.N. Sachdeva was one of such constituents. From the of the Bank records as produced, it would also appear that the Pay Order for Rs. 44,20,000/-, which was subsequently paid on account of the second auction sale in favour of the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, on account of Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd., was obtained from debiting the account of the said Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. and they were issued on the basis of a request from the said Shri Brij Chattrath on behalf of Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd., to the Chief Manager, New Bank of India, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta on 18th December, 1987. We have also indicated earlier about the endorsements which have been made at the back of the concerned Pay Order. It would also appear that the other Pay Order for Rs. 1,76,00,080/- was issued in favour of the Commissioner of Sanchaita Investments by the New Bank of India, on credition from the account at the instructions of Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. which was also signed by the said Shri Chattrath, the authorised signatory. 28. On the basis of the evidence as available, inter alia, amongst others, from the records as produced, Mr. Basu, appearing for the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, stated that thus, it would appeal so far the first sale -was concerned, the earnest money of Rs. 28. On the basis of the evidence as available, inter alia, amongst others, from the records as produced, Mr. Basu, appearing for the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, stated that thus, it would appeal so far the first sale -was concerned, the earnest money of Rs. 10,00,000/- was paid by Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. and thereafter, they have failed and, neglected to pay the balance amount of the bid. It was also pointed out that so far the first sale was concerned the purchaser on record was Somdutt Construction Co. whose constituent Attorney was the said Shri Brij Chattrath and M/s. Mukherjee & Biswas Advocates had represented the auction purchaser. It was also pointed out the original office of the said Somdutt Constructions Co. was at 8, Circus Market Place, Calcutta-17, which incidentally is the present address of Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. and the partners for the said purchaser Somdutt Constructions, were Sarbashree D.N. Sachdeva, whose particulars we have indicated earlier and Madanlal Ailawadhi and Som Nath Walia. It was also indicated by Mr. Bose that so far as the second sale was concerned, even though Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. was not the successful bidder and the successful bidder was Eastern Properties (P) Ltd., the initial amount of Rs 44,22,000/- was really paid by or at the instance and Instructions of Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd., through the New Bank of India, Clive Row Branch, Calcutta and thereafter the balance amount of Rs. 1,76,00,080/- was also paid by or at the instance of the said Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. through the Bank as mentioned hereinbefore. It was pointed out that although the second auction sale was concluded in favour of Eastern Properties (P) Ltd., which at the relevant time was a defunct Company, the present claimant of the said purchase was Eastern Properties, of which the said Shri Brij Chattrath, who was the constituent Attorney of Somdutt Constructions Co., was also the concerned Attorney and Shri R.C. Banerjee, who acted on behalf of the said Eastern Properties (P) Ltd., a defunct Company, on the basis of the power as filed, was and is also an assistant of M/s. Mukherjee & Biswas, Advocates, who were representing Somdutt Constructions Co. at the first auction. at the first auction. It was further pointed out that it is a strange coincidence that Eastern Properties (P) Ltd., the said defunct Company or the present claimant purchaser Eastern Properties, have the same office address at 8, Circus Market Place, which has also been shown to be the original office of Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. It was also pointed out that one Shri Ashok Joidka of Joidka Finance & Investment Company, who has claimed to be a partner of Eastern Properties (P) Ltd., the defunct Company or the Eastern Properties, i.e. the present claimant purchaser, was also a shareholder of Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. and apart from that, Smt. Venita Chattrath who has earlier been mentioned as a relation of the said Shri Brij Chattrath and is also a partner of the said Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. now defunct of the Eastern Properties the present claimant purchaser, infects has been claimed to be the wife of the said Shri Brij Chattrath. That apart, it was also shown from the records as produced, that the Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. is also a partner of the defunct Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. or the present claimed purchaser Eastern Properties and in fact, both the said Somdutt Builders Constructions Company and the other defunct Company or the claimant purchasers, are managed by Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. 29. On the basis of the above, Mr. Bose claimed and wanted to estab1ish that really the purchaser in the subsequent auction, was none but an alterego of Somdutt Company or Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. and for the purpose of establishing the common management of Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd., Somdutt Constructions Co. and Eastern Properties, it was pointed out that the Registered office of all those concerns ere or have been shown to be at 8, Circus Market Place, Calcutta-17 and it was also pointed out that the said 8, Circus Market Place, Calcutta-17 hog now been renumbered and renamed as 8, Acharyya Jagadish Bose Road, Calcutta-17. Apart from the above and as mentioned earlier, it was sought to be established on the basis of the records as produced, that there was also commonness of the management of the concerns as mentioned earlier and that would also appear from the list of Directors of Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. and the partners of Somdutt Constructions Company and Eastern Properties. 30. 30. Shri Mitra, who led Shri Bose, apart from relying on the submissions of Shri Bose as indicated hereinbefore indicated that en the basis of the records as produced there would thus be no difficulty in bedding, observing or finding that the purchaser in the two auction sales were the same and the address of Somdutt Construction Company and Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. were also the same, apart from indicating that both the concerns as mentioned hereinbefore, have authorized the same person viz.. Shri Brij Chattrath as their authorized agent and signatory and the said Shri Chattrath has also been mentioned as the authorised agent Rod signatory of Eastern Properties. In fact, it was also pointed out by Shri Mitra, that all the payments including the payment of Rs. 10,00,000/-, on account of the first installment of the auction price by Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. and the subsequent two payments made on behalf of the subsequent purchaser, came from the same source and in fact, those payments were made on the basis of the instructions received from the same authorised person viz., the said Shri Brij Chattrath. It was further indicated by him that in fact and effect, the full payment on account of the second auction sale was really and for all intents and purposes, was made by or at the instance of Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd., although in the second auction sale, the highest bidder was Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. and their highest bid was confirmed and on the basis whereof, on 19th December, 1987, this Court was pleased to confirm the sale and accepted the highest bid of Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. of 8, Circus Market Place, Calcutta and passed necessary directions for the payment and thereafter, the application dated 22nd February, 1988, on the basis whereof, the validity of the proceeding relating to the concerned second auction sale has been sought to be reopened was filed by and on behalf of the depositors. 31. It was Shri Mitra's further submission that Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. was really a defunct Company on the date of the second auction and so far the Eastern Properties i.e., the subsequent claimant purchaser, there has also been no legal evidence establishing the creation of the partnership, excepting a claim of oral partnership, which according to Shri Mitra, cannot he accepted or should not be taken into consideration. He also made severe comments regarding the identity of the Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. or Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. or Eastern Properties on the basis of the facts as were indicated by his junior Shri Bose and claimed that the subsequent mistake in the matter of execution of the Vakalatnama in favour the said Shri R.C. Banerjee, as pleaded, was nothing but an after though. In fact, it was specifically claimed that on the date of the second auction sale, Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. was told to be the highest bidder, there was no such Corn pay and as soon as such attempt to mislead this Court was found to have been deeded, the sub-sequent story of wrong execution of the Vakalatnama has been imported and pleaded. It was also pointed out by Shri Mitra that even after the initiation of argument, there has been no application for appropriate correction of the name, filed or made by Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. and that would show and establish that every attempt was consciously made, to mislead this Court. It was further pointed by him, on a reference to Annexure-B, a letter dated 18th December, 1987, as filed with the petition of the depositors dated 22nd February, 1988 and which was a letter from the said Shri R.C. Banerjee to the learned Advocate for the Commissioner Sanchaita Investments, that even on that date i.e., 18th January, 1987, the said Shri Banerjee has not mentioned about the mistake, which has now been sought to be pleaded regarding the execution of the power in his favour and that too wrongly by Eastern Properties (P) Ltd., even though it was pointed out that by a letter dated 18th December, 1987, produced as Annexure-A to the said petition, that the said Shri Banerjee had addressed another letter to the said Shri Samar Kumar Basu, specifically intimating that he was acting for and on behalf of his clients Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. 32. On the basis of the averments in the petition and so also the pleadings as available in the records of this proceeding, Shri Mitra further indicated that this Court cannot keep its eyes closed to the fact or come to any conclusion other than that the said Shri Brij Chattrath was representing both the purchasers in the two auction sales and he was really the brain behind an the machinations as made or sought to be made, for misleading this Court. It was also stated by him that since Somdutt Constructions Co. did not deposit the earnest money, which they were required to do on account of the first auction sa1e, on 10th September, 1986, a Contempt Rule was issued against the said Shri Brij Chattrath, representative-cum-constituent Attorney of that Company and on the same duty, the said Sari Brij Chattrath deposited the concerned amount and such amount, as would appear from the records, was deposited by debiting the account of Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. and even thereafter, the payments on account of the second auction sale were also made by or at the instance of the said Shri Brij Chattrath. 33. It was also claimed and contended by Shri Mitra that if the corporate veil is lifted, which this Court will be entitled and authorised to do, it would appear that the purchasers in the concerned auction sales were none but one concern and they were none else than Somdutt Constructions (P) Ltd. It was also claimed by him that identify of the same character of the two purchasers, would also appear, if the facts as indicated hereinbefore, are taken into consideration and really, on following the principles as enunciated by Lord Denning M.R., in the case of Wallersteiner vs. Moir, (1974) 3 AER 217, there would be no difficulty to find out, who was the real purchaser on the man and institution or concern behind the purchases. It would appear that in that case, one Dr. Wallersteiner used many Companies, Trusts or other legal entities all if they belonged to him. He was in control of them as much as any one man Company's under the control of the one man who owns all the shares and is the Chairman and Managing Director. He made contracts of enormous magnitude on their behalf on a sheet of note paper without reference to anyone else. He was in control of them as much as any one man Company's under the control of the one man who owns all the shares and is the Chairman and Managing Director. He made contracts of enormous magnitude on their behalf on a sheet of note paper without reference to anyone else. Such as a contract on behalf of the Rothschild Trust to buy shares for P. 518,786,15 slling or to vary it, or a contract on behalf of the Stawa AG for a commission P. 235,000. He used their money as if they were his own. While money was paid to him for shares which he himself owned beneficially, he banked it in the name of IFT of Nassak. Such as the P. 50,000 for the share of the Walford Chemical Company Ltd. when he paid out money on persons loans by himself, he drew the cheque on the account in the name of IFT of Nassak. Such as P. 125,000 lent to Camp Bird to payoff the Pearl charges. His concern also used their Bankers the Anglo Continental Exchange Ltd. that was a Merchant Bank in the city of London of which he was Chairman and which effectively control. On the basis of ouch facts, it was suggested that all the various concerns were used by Dr. Wallersteriner as a facade, so that each could be treated as his alterego. Each was in reality Dr. Wallersteiner wearing another hat. Dr. Wallersteriner's Counsel refuted the suggestions. He said that it was quite wrong of pierce the corporate veil and the principle enunciated in Saloman vs. Saloman Co. Ltd., (1897) AC 22, was sacrosancet. It was also submitted that if we were to treat each of these concerns as being Dr. Wallersteiner's himself under another hat, we should not be lifting a corner of the corporate veil and we should be sending it up in flames. In the facts and such back-grounds as it appeared from the statements and submissions as recorded, the picturesque pronouncement of Lord Danning, M.R. in the case as referred to hereinbefore, was made and the same bas also been recorded by the Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Escorts Ltd. & another, AIR 1986 SC 1970, to which reference was also made by Mr. Mitra, while on the question and his submissions on lifting the corporate veil. Mitra, while on the question and his submissions on lifting the corporate veil. In fact, he made specific and particular reference to the observations of the Supreme Court of India to the effect the generally and broadly speaking, it may be said that the corporate veil may be lifted where a statute itself contemplates lifting the veil, or fraud or improper conduct is intended to be prevented, or taxing statute or a beneficient statute is sought to be evaded or where associated companies are inextricably connected as to be, in reality, part of one concern. It is neither necessary nor desirable to enumerate the classes of cases where lifting the veil is permissible, since that must necessarily depend on the relevant statutory or otter provisions, the object sought to be achieved, the impugned conduct, the involvement of the electment of the public interest, the effect on parties who may be affected and submitted that in view of the claims as sought to be established in this case, the particulars thereof, have been indicated hereinbefore, the lifting of the corporate veil, for the purpose of finding out and determining the real character of the concerns, was and is necessary. Such reference was made, for establishing the facts that the concerns as mentioned viz., the purchaser in the first auction and host in the second, were and are the in extricably connected and the defence, as taken now, was not bona fide or the conduct of the present claimants, were improper and not bona fide. It was submitted that be it Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. or Eastern Prosperities, they were really wearing the hat of Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. We feel, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the claims of the counter-claims as indicated hereinbefore the alleged inextricable connection of the concerns, should be looked into and found out and for that, this Court will not be unjustified if it takes the pain or decide to have the corporate veil lifted and that also, for the purpose of finding out the real nature and character of the transaction and character of the parties. 34. Admittedly, the first auction of the premises in question, fetched a price of Rs. 4 90,00,000/- and Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. was the successful bidder. 34. Admittedly, the first auction of the premises in question, fetched a price of Rs. 4 90,00,000/- and Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. was the successful bidder. We have also indicated the other facts, that after paying 10,00,000/-, the said Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. have not deposited the balance i.e., the shortfall between the first auction price and the second auction price which was Rs. 2,21,00,000/- at the instance of Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. We have also indicated earlier, the order or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 5th May, 1987 and thus, un the basis of the said determinations and submissions as put forward now by the concerned parties, appoint arose as to the effect of the said determinations or how far this Court would be justified in, if at all, directing the concerned short fail to be paid and furthermore, whether this Court would also be justified in directing interests to be paid by the said by the said Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. and how such interest should be calculated ? There is also no doubt that the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as indicated hereinbefore, was put in by or the behalf of the said Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. and such payment was made at the instance or instructions of the said Shri B. Chattrath and he was also instrumental, not only for the payment of the earnest money for the second auction sale, where the successful bidder was Eastern Properties (P) Ltd., but be was also instrumental in having the balance of the said second purchase money, on adjustment of earnest money, to be paid. There is also no doubt that both the amounts as now and subsequently paid, came out of the accounts of Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. We have indicated earlier that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by their order as mentioned above, directed the defaulting purchaser i.e., the said Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd., to pay the shortfall and Shri Mitra, after placing the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, stated that be it under the general or under the common law, the defaulting purchasers were liable and responsible for masking the payments in respect of the shortfall and, the interest under the said order. He indicated of course, that the only question in this case would be to find out what was the amount of shortfall and not to find out whether the earnest money or the said slim of Rs. 10,00,000/- as mentioned earlier, or should not be confiscated. 35. To establish his submissions on the question of the liability and obligations of the defaulting purchaser viz., Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. Shri Mitra firstly, made a reference to the case of Raghuramh Hazra vs. Mohesh Bandopadhyaya & other, 7 CWN 111, which arose out of a suit to recover the deficiency, for which the defaulting purchaser was made answerable under section 9 of Regulation VIII of 1819 and the Bench decision in the case, bas observed that such a suit was maintainable in a Civil Court, In fact, in that proceedings, the right of suit for recovering the deficiencies for which the defaulting purchaser was made answerable, was in issue. Shri Mitra then referred to Order XXI, Rule 71 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with the question whether a defaulting purchaser is answerable for loss on re-sale and has indicated that any deficiency of price which may happen on a re-sale by reason of the purchaser's default, and all expenses attending such re-sale, shall be certified to the Court by the officer or other person holding the sale, and shall, at !he instance of either the decree-holder or the judgment-debtor, be recoverable from the defaulting purchaser under the provisions relating to the execution of a decree for the payment of money. In view of such provisions Mr. Mitra claimed that the real answer in this case will have to be found out or obtained by applying such law as mentioned hereinbefore and on application of such law, according to him, there would thus be no difficulty in having the corporate veil of the concerned parties as mentioned earlier, lifted. It was further pointed out by him, on the basis of his submissions about the identity or otherwise of the two concerns as mentioned earlier, that thus under the general law, forfeiture of the earnest money of Rs. It was further pointed out by him, on the basis of his submissions about the identity or otherwise of the two concerns as mentioned earlier, that thus under the general law, forfeiture of the earnest money of Rs. 10,00,000/- as paid by Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. would be possible and permissible and this Court will also be appropriately authorised, to ask for the payment of the shortfall between the parties of the two sales as mentioned hereinbefore, to be paid by the said Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. In support of such submissions, Shri Mitra made a further reference to the Full Bench determinations of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sitaram vs. Janakiram, AIR 1922 All 200. In that case, certain properties which were put up for Bale in a execution sale. Was knocked down by the Sales Officer to the appellant, the highest bidder. On his failure to make the necessary deposit of 25% of the purchase money, as it had become too late in the date the Sale officer announced that the property would be put up for re-sale in the next morning, he did so and the sale fetched must less price. The judgment-debtor applied under Order XXI, Rule 71 of the Code to make the first purchaser liable for the difference and it has been held that there had been a sale forth with within the meaning of Order XXI, Rule 84 and the defaulting purchaser was liable. 36. Shri Mitra then indicated that Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. were aware of the date or sale of 9th September, 1986 and the terms and conditions of the sale. He also pointed out that it is an admitted fact that their Special Leave Petition was dismissed and thereafter, on 5th May, 1987, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed their order as indicated hereinbefore and by such order, discretion if any, as was left with the Commissioner, Sanchaita .Investments, was taken away for taking any decision in the matter, but such decision, be it for recovery of the balance amount of the two sale prices and also the interest of any shortfall has been left with this Court. Thereafter, Shri Mitra referred to the second sale notice as was issued by this Court and pointed out that the said notice was same or similar to the earlier notice as on 9th September, 1986 and as mentioned earlier and the sale in question, was effected subject to the two tenancies as were prevalent in the said premises and even in the second sale, since Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. was or is an admitted partner of the subsequent purchaser, so they were also to pay the difference as mentioned earlier or as mentioned by or in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, dated 5th May, 1987. 37. On behalf of Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd., Shri R.C. Deb was leading Shri Bachawat and in support of their submissions, they put forward and placed all the relevant documents, orders and correspondence and pointed out that the concerned order of 5th May, 1987, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was passed, without considering any fact and the prayers as made by Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. and it was also an admitted fact that the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was passed without hearing the Counsel of the said Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. In fact, on a reference to the order of 5th May, 1987, as mentioned earlier, Shri Bachawat pointed out that there would be no difficulty in finding out or arriving at the conclusion that before the said order was passed, no hearing was given to his clients or their Counsel and the entire matter now is regarding the mode of payment which has been left to this Court and according to him, now in the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 5th May, 1987, there has been therefore, no directions on this Court, excepting to decide the matter in accordance with law. Thus, Shri Bachawat also pointed out that the sole question would be, if and what shortfall has to be paid by his clients? 38. It was pointed out by Shri Bachawat that in the concerned notice, pertaining to or relevant for the sale in question, there was or has been no condition regarding forfeiture of the earnest money and in fact, on the basis of the terms of the said notice, nothing can be implied on such question of forfeiture as a condition of sale. He could not of course answer to the query as put forward by the Court that no exception whatsoever was ever taken by his clients on the question of forfeiture and he of course, denied the suggestion that by their conduct, his clients had accepted such question of forfeiture. He made specific reference to the decision in the case of William Blackburn vs. John Flavelle, 6 AC 628 and also to several paragraphs of volume 12 of Halsberry's Laws of England (4th Editions), to which reference would be made hereafter. That apart, Shri Bachawat referred to the case of (Kunwar) Chiranjit Singh vs. Haswrup, AIR 1926 PC 1, which was a decision on section 74 of the Contract Act and wherein the point for decision was the effect of a contract broken by a purchaser and if in such case, the earnest money can be even effected. It has been observed by the Privy Council in that case that earnest money is part of the purchase price when the transaction goes forward; it is forfeited when the transaction falls through, by reasons of or for failure of the vendee. On the basis of the decision or the effect thereof, Shri Bachawat contended that in the instant case, his clients cannot be held liable for the forfeiture, if any, because there was in fact, no failure or fault on their behalf, in the matter of having the transactions completed or concluded. We cannot agree with such submissions in the facts of this case. 39. Then Shri Bachawat pointed out that admittedly, in the first auction sale the premises in question, fetched a price of Rs. 4,09,00,000/- but in the second auction such price was not offered by any bidder and be offer in the subsequent second auction being Rs. 2,21,00,000/-, it should be observed that the said amount was the real market price of the premises in question and such being the position, he submitted, that thus it would be difficult for this Court to determine the amount of shortfall, if any, because that, according to him, should be calculated on the basis of the market price as available on the date of the second subsequent sale. He also pointed out that under or in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, 5th July, 1977, was the last date for paying the balance of the two purchase prices or any amount and there is or has been no evidence of the market price of the premises in question on that date i.e., 5th July, 1987. He further contended that the demurrage or damages, it any, cannot also be fixed without a suit for damages. It was further pointed out by him that in the two sale notice there has been of mentioning of encumbrance, if any, and there is no cause for forfeiture. He also pointed out that the difference of the two sale prices have been caused, since-en the date of the subsequent sale, the price of the property in question, could not be fixed at more than Rs. 2,21,00,000/- and that was perhaps, due to the encumbrances on the property, which was already in existence. It. was further submitted by him that the provisions of the order XXI, Rule 71 as pointed out by Mr. Mitra, would not apply in this case, because those provisions as available and applicable only in case of execution of decrees. Such submissions were made by Shri Bachawat on the basis of the plea that the order as made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India cannot be termed or considered to be an order for execution of a decree. To establish that the premises in question, had not fetched more it an the earlier auction price or could not fetch a higher price, Shri Bachawat also referred to a letter from K.N. Dalina, to the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments. 40. Shri Sen, appearing for Eastern Properties i.e., the subsequent purchaser after placing the relevant dates, which have been mentioned earlier, submitted that since there has been no application for setting aside the confirmation of sale, which was made in favour of his climes and more particularly when the entire money has admittedly been deposited by his clients, this Court should not pass any order, which will have the effect of setting aside of the sale. He, of course, submitted that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has mentioned the name of Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd., so the money, if at all, should and can be recovered from them and not from his clients and that too even if they are considered to be the alter-ego of the said Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. 41. While on his reply to the submissions of Shri Mitra, about the lifting of the corporate veil, Shri Sen submitted that there can be no doubt that such veil in appropriate cases should be lifted, but he submitted, that in the facts of this case, the determinations as cited by Shri Mitra will not be applicable, as here, we are not sure as to whose corporate veil we are going to or we shall be required to lift. We cannot agree with submissions of Shri Sen. 42. We have indicted earlier the sequence of dates, starting from the date of first auction upto the ultimate order dated 5th May, 1987 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. After relying on those dates and narrating the happenings, Shri Sen submitted that the pith and substance of the said order of the Supreme Court was not that the initial purchaser should pay the difference between the two available auction prices of the premises in question or to pay the interest on the balance but the decision to be made according to law, has been left with this court. In any event, he reiterated that his clients are not required to pay anything on the basis of the said order of the Supreme Court of India and as such, the auction sale in their favour, should be confirmed and possession to them should be handed over forthwith and more, particularly, the second highest bidder in that auction K.N. Dalina had refused to pay their bid amount. It is true that the second or subsequent auction of the premises in question, was sought to be held on 12th October, 1987, as pointed out by Mr. It is true that the second or subsequent auction of the premises in question, was sought to be held on 12th October, 1987, as pointed out by Mr. Sen, in September, 1987 the necessary advertisement for the sale was published and after hearing, the concerned notice was settled on 21st August, 1987 and the attempt to sale on such notice failed once and the next date of such sale was fixed on 29th October, 1987 and on that date, the said sale could not also be held and the same was postponed to 26th November, 1987 and then to 10th December, 1987, for the purpose of having a better offer and really on that date the auction sale took place, wherein his clients became the successful bidder. It was also pointed out by Shri Sen that in such Sole, the said Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. also participated. He further pointed out that the Commissioner Sanchaita Investments was to handover the possession of the premises in question to his clients on 11th February, 1988 and then came, the present petition of the depositors and in that petition, no prayer, as pointed out earlier has been made against his clients or any relief against them has really been claimed. It was also pointed out by him that even if their supplementary affidavit dated 11th March, 1988, the depositors have not claimed either any relief against his clients or have made any allegations of fraud against them and submitted that in such circumstances the auction sale in favour of his clients should not be set aside and possession as confirmed, should at once be delivered. It was Shri Sen's categorical submission that when the depositors have neither asked for setting aside the sale nor have challenged the same, this Court should not interfere, rather it should give full effect to the same and furthermore, should give effect to prayer (D) of the petition, hereby it has been prayed that Somdutt Construction be directed to deposit with the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, the difference amount with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum calculated from 25th August, 1986 being the date of acceptance of the bid submitted by Somdutt Construction and that too on the basis that there was or has been a valid sale. 43. 43. Shri Sen also and in the line of Shri Bachawat, submitted that the available price of the premises in question, on the date of the second auction sale was the price which was offered by his clients, since no higher price was available and thus the price as offered by his clients should be considered to be the market price of the premises on that date, Shri Sen then referred to Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with applications to set aside sale on the ground of irregularity and fraud and postulates that (1) where any immovable property has hee!1 sold in execution of a decree, the decree holder or the purchaser, or any other person entitled to share in a reteable distribution of assets, or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or concluding it. (2) no sale shall be set aside on the ground of irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it unless, upon the facts proved, the Court is satisfied that the applicant bas sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or fraud, (3) no application to set aside a sale under this rule shall be entertained upon any ground which the applicant could have taken on or before the date on which the proclamation of sale was drawn up and has also added the explanation, that the mere absence of, or defect in. attachment of the property sold shall not by itself, be a ground for setting aside a sale under this rule, and on the basis of those provisions, reiterated that since there has been no allegation or any pleading on fraud or irregularity in this case against his clients and they have in fact suffered or are suffering or have sustained injury, for not obtaining the possession of the premises in question, even after due and necessary payment of the entire auction price, there should be no order made in favour of the depositors or on their petition. Shri Sen also pointed out that the power of confiscation to this Court has not also been given on the basis of or In terms of the order of the Supreme Court dated 5th May. 1987. Shri Sen also pointed out that the power of confiscation to this Court has not also been given on the basis of or In terms of the order of the Supreme Court dated 5th May. 1987. On the basis of the available pleadings and evidence on record, we feel that there would be no difficulty in holding and which we have indicated earlier that the entire transaction was mala fide and such finding would be enough to set aside the concerned auction sale. 44. On consideration of the available pleadings now, the submissions made on the basis thereof, by the learned advocates appearing farther parties and so also the intrinsic evidence as available, there cannot also be any doubt or dispute that a concerned attempt was made by Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. or at their instance and through the said Mr. Chattrath, to nullify, not only the orders made by this Court, but also to make the order of the Supreme Court of India nugatory and ineffective or to by-pass the effect and incidents of the same and to the same and to purchase the premises in question in the said second auction sale through their own men or institution or concerns and such act or auctions was not bona fide and such being the position, this Court, in terms of the determinations in Wellersteiner vs. Moir (supra), and so also the observations and determinations in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Escort & another (supra), would be entitled and authorized to lift the corporate veil and to find out, (which we have done), the real purchaser in the second auction sale of the premises in question. 45. On the considerations as above, we have come to the conclusion that it was Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. and none else, who created all the machinations and that too for the purposes indicated above and they have really, as a master brain acted through the said Shri Chattrath and made attempts to overreach this Court. 45. On the considerations as above, we have come to the conclusion that it was Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. and none else, who created all the machinations and that too for the purposes indicated above and they have really, as a master brain acted through the said Shri Chattrath and made attempts to overreach this Court. When we mention about the said Shri Chattrath, we must also keep one fact on record and which strack us at the time of the second auction sale, where the said Somdutt Builders also put forward their bid along with Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. When we were considering the affidavit of the said Shri Chattrath in the proceeding, at our request the learned Advocate appearing for Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd., identified him to us and we found that he was the gentleman, who was all through out present in Court at the time of the said second aution sale and was really instructing the learned advocate for the said Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. and so also the learned advocate appearing for Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. On consideration of all the aspects and submission in this proceeding and also the available records, we further find that the Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. or the Eastern Properties as subsequently claimed to be the real purchaser, were nothing but an alter-ego of Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. 46. We cannot also doubt, on the basis of the materials as available from the records, that on the date of the concerned second auction sale, the said Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. was a defuct company and still it is so, and the defence as put forward subsequently, viz., that the premises in question, was really purchased by Eastern Properties, as constituted all the basis of an oral agreement, cannot be excepted an should be deemed to be not banafide. 47. 47. We feel and find that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India can and should be considered as a decree and their order dated 5th May, 1987, has clothed this Court with the necessary powers, not only to ask for the difference of the price between the first and second action sale with necessary legal interest to be paid, but bas also authorised this Court, to ask and direct payment of such legal interest on the short all from the actual purchaser viz., the said Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd., which again is the partner of both Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. or the Eastern Properties, which his been claimed now to be the real purchaser and such being the position, we direct the said Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd., to make the payments as indicted above over and above the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, which has already been forfeited and unless the payments as indicated above are received from the said Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. or their alter-ego, be it Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. or Eastern Properties within two months, the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments should not with the possession of the premises in question. While on the point of identity of the said Eastern Properties (P) Ltd. and Eastern Properties, it is really strange that Eastern Properties i.e., the subsequent claimant purchaser has neither asked for the change of the name nor has asked for substituting their name. 48. We are also of the firm opinion that in this case, every attempt was made .and that too not in a bonafide manner, by or at the instance of Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd., to come out of the rigors of the Supreme Court order dated 5th May, 1987 and or the basis of that order and the law, we can authorisedly put in the necessary restrictions as indicated hereinbefore and more particularity when the shortfall is to be decided according to the determinations made and considered in terms of the general law of the land. We thus find that the submissions of Shri Mitra were of substance. 49. We thus find that the submissions of Shri Mitra were of substance. 49. We have indicated earlier that Shri Bachawat made a reference to the determinations in William Blackburn vs. John Flavelle (supra) where it has been observed that hands taken under a conditional sale and afterwards forfeited to the Crown are not open to a conditional purchase under section 13 of the Crown Lands Alienation Act, 1861. The Crown has, under the 18th section, the option either to sell them by public auction or to retain them in its own hands. The said determination in our view has no application in this case and similar will be the position in respect of the observations in paragraph 1476 of Volume 12 of Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edition) at page 611, to which reference was also made by Shri Bachawat more particularly when, those observations relate to Interpretation of deeds. 50. Thus, the present petition succeeds and allowed with an examplenary costs assessed at Rs. 5,000-. 51. Before leaving the matter, we must keep our appreciation for the depositors in this case, as because of them only, we have been able to detect the scheme which was .ought Co be committed or hatched by or at the Instance of Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. or their alter-ego and that, also although the said Shri Chattrath who in terms of the determinations in the case of Wallersteiner vs. Moir (supra), was really representing Somdutt Constriction Co., Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. and Eastern Properties by wearing different moto. Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J. – I agree with My Lord but in view of the special features of this case, I would like to add few words of my own. It is almost an accepted position now that the Sanchaita procedure, though somewhat extraordinary, has proved its efficacy in subserving the ends of justice a purpose for achievement of which it had been devised by the highest judiciary of the country. The Instant case is an illustration as to how, in spite of sincere and careful endeavour to serve those who deserve to be served inequity and justice, circumstances and situations appear and/or are created to thwart the achievement of such purpose. The Instant case is an illustration as to how, in spite of sincere and careful endeavour to serve those who deserve to be served inequity and justice, circumstances and situations appear and/or are created to thwart the achievement of such purpose. The facts of the instant case are uniquze and bristle with tech1icalities which if considered in a pedantic fashion might frustrate the intention of the Supreme Court for which such procedure of Sanchaita had been created. I firmly believe that technicalities in procedure are mere hand-maids of justice and there is no injustice which the hands of this Court cannot reach. 52. As already stated, the sequence of events in the present post Sanchaita stage is dramatic wherein one lone actor practically dominates the scene. He is Mr. Brij Chattrath, who appears to be the real representative and/or repository of confidence of different purchasers in the two auctions appearing at different stages of the drama. In the first auction, which took place on 9th of September, 1986, one Somdutt Construction Company became the highest bidder offering a bid of Rupees 4 crores 9 lakhs. For nonpayment of earnest money of Rs. 10 lakhs 8 Contempt Rule had to be issued against the said Mr. Chattrath who had been representing the auction purchaser and on 10th of September, 1986, that is, on the same day the Contempt Rule was issued the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs had been deposited by Mr. Chattrath. It appears that such payment was made after debiting the account of Somdutt Builders (P) Limited. The purchaser at that point of time was being represented by Messrs Mukherjee and Biswas. In the Special Leave Application preferred by Voltas Limited, one of the tenants in the premises in question, the Supreme Court by its order dated 10th of December, 1986, which dismissing the said Special Leave Petition extended the time for depositing the balance amount by the auction purchaser upto 15th of January, 1987. It is pertinent to note that in the meantime the advocate for the auction purchased had intimated the Commissioner of Sanchaita Investment about the eagerness of his client to purchase, the property. It is pertinent to note that in the meantime the advocate for the auction purchased had intimated the Commissioner of Sanchaita Investment about the eagerness of his client to purchase, the property. No payment having been made again a Contempt application had to be filed by the Commissioner of Sanchaita Investment before the Supreme Court which was disposed of by the Supreme Court by its order dated 5th of May, 1987, in presence of the learned Counsel for the auction purchaser giving two months' time for payment of the balance amount and directing that in default of such payment be auction in favour of the purchaser would stand vacated. The High Court was permitted, in such event, inter alia, to consider whether a fresh auction would be held and whether the shortfall with interest would be recovered from the auction purchaser. As stated already a re-auction had to be held as the balance amount had not been paid by the auction purchaser Somdutt Construction within the scheduled time and the second auction took place on 10th of December, 1987 wherein the highest bidder was Eastern Properties Private Limited of 8, Circus Market Place represented by Mr. R.C. Banerjee, an Assistant in the office of Mukherjee and Biswas, the advocates for the purchaser in the first auction, namely, Somdutt Construction of Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road and initially of 8, Circus Market Place and the highest bid for Rupees 2 crores 21 lakhs. On 18.12.1987 a sum of Rs. 44 lakhs 20 thousand was paid to the Commissioner of Sanchaita Investment through a Bank Draft issued on the instruction of Mr. Brij Chattrath by debiting the account of Somdutt Builders Private Limited. It is significant that the name of Eastern Properties Private Limited had been struck 0if from the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies long back. When this was brought to the notice of this Court on behalf of the depositors, by mentioning, it was sought to be slated before this Court that through mistake the purchaser's name was mentioned as Eastern Properties Private Limited which should be Eastern Properties, a partnership firm. On 18.11.1988 the balance sum of Rs. 1 crore 76 lakhs had been deposited by Eastern Properties currying on business at 8, Circus Market Place and the relevant pay order was issued on the instruction of Mr. On 18.11.1988 the balance sum of Rs. 1 crore 76 lakhs had been deposited by Eastern Properties currying on business at 8, Circus Market Place and the relevant pay order was issued on the instruction of Mr. Brij Chattrath and the payment was made by Somdutt Builders Private Limited. It further appears that Somdutt Builders Private Limited is one of the partners of Eastern Properties and a Director of Somdutt Builders (P) Ltd. is also one of the Directors in Somdutt Construction. The elaborate and careful analysis in the judgment of the learned Acting Chief Justice clearly brings out the intrinsic nexus of those three concerns namely, Somdutt Construction Company, Somdutt Builders Private Limited and Eastern Properties and lifting of the said inevitably establishes that the real purchaser is Somdutt Builders Private Limited and the names of Eastern Properties Eastern Properties Private Limited and Somdutt Construction have been used for the purpose of camouflaging the real purchaser. Mr. Brij Chattrath has represented all three concerns by wearing different hats at different times. The whole manoeuvra is well-planed and designed to over-reach the Court and acquire the property at a lesser value. The default in making payment of the balance amount of the bid in the first action sale is to make the second auction inevitable. The prayers made in the aforesaid circumstances on behalf of Eastern Properties, before this Court either for canceling the second auction or for delivering the property to it and pursuing Somdutt Construction for recovery of shortfall also clearly reveal la a mala fide endeavour to avoid any payment of such shortfall. Since it is crystal clear that the real purchaser is Somdutt Builders Private Limited both in the first and second auctions it would not be inconsistent with the concept of justice to compel the said purchaser to pay the shortfall and thus bear the ultimate penalty for attempted deprivation of the innocent depositors. The above analysis would immediately attract well-known the theory of alter-ego to she instant case. To accede to the prayers made on behalf of the purchaser in the second auction, namely, Eastern Properties Eastern Properties Private Limited would be to give premium to malafides and a Court of justice can till afford to overlook this aspect or ignore the same.