9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been created in favour of the auction purchaser over a period of time subsequent to the deposit of the amount, possession being handed over and the property even alleged to have been further dealt with. The clock cannot be set back because one of the parties offers an additional 20 per cent of the amount now. If such a process is followed, there can never be any end to a transaction of this nature where assets have to be sold. Thus the endeavour by the appellant is to clearly drag on the litigation on one pretext or the other. We find the appeals without any merit. - COMPANY APPLICATION NOS. 34, 42 AND 47 OF 2006 - - - Dated:- 16-1-2009 - SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, JJ. Vikramjit Banerjee, Harish Malhotra and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Company Judge thereafter till the Orders were passed on 25-5-2006 by the learned Company Judge holding fresh auctions and accepting a bid of M/s. Balaji for Rs. 7 crores though there was no undertaking given for re-employment of the workers of the said Company. 3. The aforesaid, thus, forms the subject-matter of Co. App. No. 34/2006. 4. There is a second set of two appeals being Co. App. No. 42/2006 and Co. App. No. 47/2006 filed by M/s. Omkam Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Krishna Cell Links Pvt. Ltd. respectively aggrieved by the same Order as it is their case that they were also bidders for the assets of the said Company and there were procedural infirmities in the bid, which call for interference in the present appeals. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of some land, which vested with the Government as also demarcation of the actual land. Since such documents were not made available, there could not be a proper bid made by these two companies. 8. Learned Company Judge has taken note of the fact that the Order for liquidation was passed as far back as on 23-10-1997. In order to facilitate the disposal of the assets more specifically the immovable assets being the factory and land, an Order was passed on 27-1-2000 appointing a valuer, who submitted a valuation report on 10-4-2000 valuing the property at Rs. 3.5 crores. Since there was an issue involved about the mortgage of the land of the said factory premises with the Government of West Bengal, the said aspect was directed to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set of applications by M/s. Efflon Tie UP (P.) Ltd. ( M/s. Efflon ) and M/s. Chitrakoot Agencies Pvt. Ltd. ( M/s. Chitrakoot ). M/s. Chitrakoot stated that it was willing to give substantial higher bid than Rs. 3.15 crores. This very applicant claimed in the proceedings resulting in the Order dated 25-5-2006 that there was no demarcation. In fact, the auction held on 4-8-2005 was not confirmed, but the option was given to the various applicants to visit the land at their own risk and expenses in terms of the Order dated 22-9-2005. 13. The Official Liquidator was directed on 21-4-2006 to once again take out an advertisement/sale proclamation in the newspaper requiring the bidders to deposit an Earnest Money Deposit (for short, EMD ) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land prices. The long pendency has also resulted in theft of movable assets worth more than Rs. 22 lakhs. 16. Learned Company Judge, in our considered view, rightly evolved the process of inter se bidding in the Court itself amongst the bidders, who cared to be present and the resultant price fetched was of Rs. 7 crores almost double the amount of the liability of the said Company. 17. Learned senior counsel referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in FCS Software Solutions Ltd. v. La Medical Devices Ltd. [2008] 85 SCL 401 to advance the proposition that even after an auction sale has been completed, re-auction can be carried out if appropriate prices are not fetched due to non-disclosure of necessary facts. 18. Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21. The matter has been prolonged on one pretext or the other postponing the inevitable sale of the property. Not only has the property been sold, but also the possession handed over to the successful auction purchaser. The physical possession was handed over on 27-9-2006 as per the affidavit filed by the Official Liquidator affirmed on 23-10-2008. 22. Learned senior counsel did seek to contend that the successful auction purchaser has been selling portions of the property, but that is the prerogative of the auction purchaser to make best use of the said land purchased by it. After all, no one is performing a charitable function, but the bidding has taken place for commercial interest. 23. It cannot be lost sight of that the bid is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
