9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iquidation were sold by the official liquidator in a public auction for Rs-2-50 crores, but the sale was not confirmed by this court vide order dated September 21, 2006, passed in C.A. No. 591 of 2006. While passing the said order, this court constituted a sale committee under the chairmanship of Shri I.P. Singh, advocate of this court with the representatives of the secured creditors and official liquidator as its members. The said sale committee in its meeting dated October 18, 2006, decided to get fresh valuation of the assets/properties of the company under liquidation. The said valuation was got conducted from M/s. NITCON, a Government enterprise through Punjab Financial Corporation, one of the secured creditors. After receiving the said valuation report by the chairman of the sale committee, the said valuation report was made available to all the members of the sale committee including all the secured creditors in the meeting dated March 12, 2007. According to the said report, the distress value of the assets of the company under liquidation, which was to be sold, was assessed at Rs. 402.14 lakhs. All the secured creditors were satisfied with said valuation report and no obje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ational Fresh Farm Products (India) Ltd., (respondent No. 4 herein) has been accepted by the competent authority. The letter given by PSIDC to the official liquidator is dated May 4, 2007, which has been annexed with this application as annexure A6. After receiving the intimation from all the secured creditors, the official liquidator accepted 25 per cent of the bid amount paid by respondent No. 4 towards the sale consideration. When all the formalities were completed, the official liquidator filed the instant application for confirmation of the sale. 5. When this application came up for consideration on July 5, 2007, all the secured creditors except PSIDC were having no objection in confirmation to the highest bid given by respondent No. 4. However, counsel for PSIDC/ respondent No. 1 submitted that no objection letter dated May 4, 2007, given by the Deputy General Manager of the Corporation regarding approval of the highest bid was not got approved from the competent authority, which is the board of directors. Counsel, therefore submitted that as far as PSIDC is concerned, they are objecting to the confirmation of the sale in favour of respondent No. 4. Counsel for respondent No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the decision will also be taken about the loss caused because of the stand taken by the respondent-Corporation." 6. In pursuance of the abovesaid order, respondent No. 1 filed C. A. No. 460 of 2007 submitting its written submission. As per the application, respondent No. 1 has agreed with conditions Nos. 1 and 2. However, they have shown disagreement to condition No. 3. 7. On the other hand, counsel for the official liquidator and other secured creditors opposed the prayer of respondent No. 1 for re-auctioning the properties of the company under liquidation, reiterating their earlier submissions. 8. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. 9. Counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the highest bid given by respondent No. 4 should not be accepted as the price offered by it is the reasonable price of the assets of the company under liquidation, and if re-auction is conducted, this property may fetch more price. He further submitted that in this case the valuation report was not properly prepared. The assets of the company have been under valued and the distress value of the assets of the company has been wrongly assessed as Rs. 402.14 lakhs. He submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailable to all the members of the sale committee including the representative of all the secured creditors. The representatives of all the secured creditors were satisfied with the valuation report and nobody raised any objection to the same. Thereafter, the tenders were opened and inter se bidding between four bidders was conducted. M/s. International Fresh Farm Products (India) Ltd., gave the highest bid of Rs. 4.21 crores. All the members of the sale committee including the representatives of the secured creditors showed their satisfaction to the auction proceedings as well as amount offered by the highest bidder. Learned counsel submitted that all the secured creditors were given 15 days time to get approval from the competent authority. Thereafter, all the secured creditors, including respondent No. 1 gave in writing to the official liquidator about the approval of the highest bid given by respondent No. 4. On their approval, the official liquidator asked the highest bidder to deposit 25 per cent of the bid amount and consequently they deposited the same. Counsel contends that for two months, respondent No. 1 did not raise any objection. When the case came up for consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een annexed as annexure A6 to the effect that they have no objection if the highest bid is accepted and a request was made to the official liquidator to move an application for confirmation of the sale in favour of respondent No. 4 at the earliest. Even thereafter for two months, they did not raise any objections. It appears that subsequently respondent No. 1 with some oblique motive raised objections to the confirmation of the sale in favour of the highest bidder, which in my opinion, is not justified at all. This court gave respondent No. 1 an offer and opportunity to bring any person, who is ready to give a higher bid than respondent No. 4. However, they failed to bring any such higher bidder. Thereafter, this court ordered that re-auction can be ordered if respondent No. 1 is ready to fulfil three conditions as mentioned in above part of the order, but respondent No. 1 has shown its inability to comply with those conditions. 12. In this case, earlier the property was sold for Rs. 2.50 crores and the said sale was not confirmed. Now in the instant auction the bid has been given for Rs. 4.21 crore. In spite of wide publicity, no other bidder came forward. Every secured creditor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
