1997 PLP 852 (CLC)

Khan Zia‑ud‑Din Khan for ex:‑President. Muhammad Naazar Khan, Evaluator/Auctioneer. This order will also dispose of Reports Nos. 9, 10, 13, 16, 21 made by Mr. Muhammad Naazar Khan, Evaluator/ Auctioneer and Report No. 110 submitted by the O. L.

2. Mr. Muhammad Naazar Khan, Evaluator/Applicant who was originally appointed as Evaluator was subsequently ordered to be associated in the process of auction of the properties of the Company has made this application for payment of his commission out of the sale proceeds of the assets of the Company as provided in Rule 21(b) of the High Court Rules and Orders, Chapter 12‑L, Volume I. According to this rule an auctioneer is to be paid 5 % of the sale proceeds if they do not exceed Rs.50,000 and 2‑1/2, if they exceed Rs.50,000 Out of the five properties mentioned in' para. 2 of this petition the applicant/petitioner was associated in the sale of properties mentioned at Serial Nos. 1, 2, 3 and

5. The said sales were not confirmed by this Court and the Court held restricted Court auction.

3. The question which arises in these circumstances is as to whether the Court Auctioneer was entitled to the commission according to the rates mentioned above in the said Rule because the said Rule provides that from the sale proceeds recovered in consequence of the sale made by the Court Auctioneer he is to be paid in the abovementioned scales.

4. Since in this case the sale proceeds were recovered not in pursuance of the auction in which the petitioner was associated but through restricted Court auction, therefore, the rates and the scales provided in the said Rule would not be strictly applicable. There is no other rule to meet such a situation. The petitioner did certainly make efforts and worked hard for auctioning the properties the confirmation of which was declined not on account of any negligence on the part of the petitioner but merely because in the opinion of the Court the price offered was low for which the petitioner cannot be blamed as he could not compel the bidders to make offers against their wishes.

5. The petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.25,000 for the labour he undertook as an Evaluator. He was also paid an amount of Rs.25,000 provisionally on account of his commission as auctioneer which was to be adjusted subsequently against the commission which he was to be paid.

6. Since the restricted Court auction had some link with the auction held by the petitioner alongwith the Official Liquidator, therefore, the Court has to act in accordance with the rule of natural justice, good conscience and equity. The total sale proceeds of the properties which were auctioned in association with the petitioner though not confirmed was more than Rs.1,63,00,

000. For the work done by the petitioner he shall be paid Rs.1,00,000 in lump sum. As he has already been paid an amount of Rs.25,000, therefore, an amount of Rs.75,000 shall be paid to him. This disposes of this application as also Reports Nos. 9. 10, 13, 16 and 21 which are on the same subject.

7. As regards Report No. 110 submitted by the O.L. on which notice was issued to Mr. Muhammad Naazar Khan, Advocate, to show cause as to why a sum of Rs.25,000 provisionally paid to him as Court Auctioneer should not be divided between him and the Official Liquidator who in addition of his function as O.L. also acted as joint Court Auctioneer with him. Since the O.L. is otherwise entitled to a commission as O.L., therefore, in my view he cannot claim any additional amount, as such, this report is hereby disposed of: A.A/M‑2554/L Order accordingly.