9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quidator has further submitted that pursuant to the advertisement issued in the Newspapers, he has received only two offers for Lot No. II, i.e., plant and machinery and other movable assets. No offer was, however, received for Lot No. I, i.e., land and building and Lot No. III, i.e., entire assets of the company-in-liquidation. He has further submitted that after auction proceedings were over, he has received an offer of Rs. 8,25,000 for entire assets of the company without earnest money deposit from M/s. Sainath Disposals of Baroda. He has placed the said offer of M/s. Sainath Disposals before this Court, along with auction proceedings by way of Official Liquidator Report No. 98 of 1999 and this Court vide its order dated 23-12-1999 accepted the highest offer of Rs. 21 lakhs quoted by M/s. Sainath Disposals in the auction proceedings conducted in the open Court. 4. The Official Liquidator has further submitted that pursuant to the confirmation of sale in favour of M/s. Sainath Disposals, an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs, being the first instalment was deposited by the said party as per the terms and conditions of sale and requested the Official Liquidator to give inspection o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany should not be forfeited as he has failed in depositing the remaining amount within stipulated time. In the meantime, a letter by RPAD was received by the Court and while directing the Registry to keep the said letter on file of this case, this Court passed an order on 28-12-2001 and observed that considering the nature of allegations made in the letter received by the Court and the annexures attached with the said letter, this O.L.R. shall have to be disposed of by a speaking order. The Court has, therefore, directed the purchaser to arrange for his appearance on the next date of hearing, otherwise, this Court shall pass appropriate orders including forfeiture of the entire amount paid by the bidder/purchaser. 7. It appears from the record that Mr. M.M. Tirmizi, the learned advocate, has filed his appearance on behalf of the purchaser and an affidavit in reply was filed on 2-2-2002. It was stated in the said affidavit that the backside door of the factory premises of the Company situated at Plot No. 162 was already broken and machinery and tools were stolen. It was further stated that the security officials employed by the Official Liquidator had either connived or had joi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, has not come before the Court in spite of several notices, it appeared that he was not interested in the said purchase any further and justiciable so. The Court has, therefore, directed that the sale of the assets of the company confirmed in favour of the said Sainath Disposals be cancelled. The Official Liquidator was directed to refund the entire amount received from M/s. Sainath Disposals including the amount of earnest money deposit to the said M/s. Sainath Disposals. While passing this order of refund of the amount paid by M/s. Sainath Disposals, the Court has further observed that several articles of significant value have been found missing. The land and building also have been damaged and the complaint was also lodged against the Officer Liquidator personally. The Court was further directed the Official Liquidator to call upon the security agency for explaining the loss of articles and also to call upon the valuer as to how he happened to miss enlisting six items referred to in the Valuation Report dated 4-9-2002. The Official Liquidator was directed to submit his further report within four weeks from the date of the said order, i.e., 2-7-2003. 10. Pursuant to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r technical names. Otherwise quantitywise the machines are same in number and there is no addition or deduction in them during four years of time and hence fear of theft is ruled out as per his opinion. If it is required to reconcile the inventory with reference to earlier one, he is prepared to do it in presence of the representative of the Official Liquidator. 11. Considering the aforesaid report of the Official Liquidator and the explanation of the valuer as well as Security Agency, this Court has passed an order on 31-1-2005 directing the valuer as well as security person to remain personally present in the Court. The Court was at pain to state in the order that the Official Liquidator has simply forwarded two replies received from the valuer as well as Security Agency along with his report, without offering any comments or making any suggestions in respect of the explanation received from the valuer as well as Security Agency. The valuer has simply put forward a plea regarding mistake whereas the Security Agency has denied that the theft was committed. As a result of the alleged discrepancy found in the items in two Valuation Reports, the sale which was confirmed in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder regarding refund of EMD and other payment was obtained from this Court and when explanation was sought for from the Security Agency as well as the valuer, the plea regarding mistake was put forward. The Valuer as well as the Security Agency have failed to discharge their duty in proper manner and the Official Liquidator has also not taken proper care by not placing the correct facts before this Court and by not taking and/or suggesting proper actions against the valuer as well as Security Agency. The valuer being an expert in his field should have taken proper care before submitting his report. Here in the present case, it is an admitted position that in earlier report of 1998, certain items were not considered. It is also an admitted position that the items which were considered were not found subsequently. An inventory was taken in 2002. The valuer has simply stated that items worth Rs. 79,000 were missing. As against this, items worth Rs. 79,500 were found which were not incorporated in the earlier report. In such a situation, the valuer is certainly answerable as to why he has not taken into consideration the items which were found subsequently. He cannot justify his actio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
