9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Sale confirmation in favor of respondent No. 1 and subsequent challenges. 2. Validity of setting aside the sale in favor of the appellant. 3. Review of confirmed sales and principles governing such reviews. 4. Payment of workers union and sale price adequacy. Issue 1: Sale confirmation in favor of respondent No. 1 and subsequent challenges: The judgment deals with Company Appeal Nos. 4 and 7 of 2009, where the sale in favor of respondent No. 1 was confirmed by the learned Single Judge, despite challenges from the rival bidder and the workers union. The appellant sought to set aside the sale, leading to a series of legal actions and counter-actions. Issue 2: Validity of setting aside the sale in favor of the appellant: The main contention raised was that the sale in favor of the appellant at a higher bid should not have been set aside, especially when there was no inadequacy in the price offered and no irregularities or fraud in the sale process. The appellant argued that the confirmed sale could not be reviewed, but the court disagreed, citing the power to reopen even confirmed sales under certain circumstances. Issue 3: Review of confirmed sales and principles governing such reviews: The judgment highlighted the principles governing the review of confirmed sales, emphasizing that courts have inherent powers to reopen such sales, not solely based on higher offers. The best price for the company in liquidation and stakeholders' benefit should guide such decisions, even without proof of fraud or irregularity. The court referenced relevant Supreme Court judgments to support its conclusions. Issue 4: Payment of workers union and sale price adequacy: The workers union, although paid in full, contended that the property was sold below its actual value. However, the court noted that opportunities were given to secure a higher bid in the past, which were unsuccessful. The workers union declined to refund the amount received if a fresh sale was ordered, leading the court to dismiss their appeal along with the rival bidder's appeal. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the sale in favor of respondent No. 1, emphasizing the principles governing review of confirmed sales and the importance of securing the best price for the company in liquidation. The judgment dismissed the appeals with no order as to costs, endorsing the decision of the learned Single Judge.
|
