9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proceedings in Company Application No. 358 of 2005 when the property had not been re-advertised, but it chose to remain silent. The process of re-advertisement has clearly fetched much higher price than what was given by the appellant. Having regard to the aforesaid and especially in view of the fact that the appellant had the option to go in for fresh bidding and the property in question has fetched more than twice the amount offered by the appellant, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. - CO. APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2006 CA NO. 178 OF 2005 IN C.P. NO. 42 OF 1999 - - - Dated:- 15-10-2007 - VIJENDER JAIN AND MAHESH GROVER, JJ. Vijay Sharma for the Appellant. Anil Aggarwal for the Official Liquidator. Anand Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It was also directed that a stipulation in the advertisement be made that the entire sale price would have to be deposited on the date the sale is confirmed or within such time as the court may direct, not exceeding two weeks and that all the participants including the applicant in Company Application No. 358 of 2005 would be asked to deposit an earnest money of Rs. 40 lakhs along with their offers in sealed covers. The amount deposited by the appellant and respondent No. 2 was directed to be kept in fixed deposit and was to be returned after confirmation of the fresh sale along with interest. 5. On 20-3-2006, this Court issued notice of motion to the respondents in the appeal and directed that fresh offers pursuant to the advertiseme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o that the sale of assets of a company in liquidation fetches the maximum price so as not to defeat the process of liquidation which is to satisfy the creditors. The appellant was, concededly, given the option to participate in the fresh bid and also to give a higher bid if it so desired during the proceedings in Company Application No. 358 of 2005 when the property had not been re-advertised, but it chose to remain silent. The process of re-advertisement has clearly fetched much higher price than what was given by the appellant. 11. Even during the course of proceedings in this appeal, we had specifi-cally asked learned counsel for the appellant as to whether the appellant was willing to go for inter se bidding to which he flatly dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
