9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icant within one week from the date of receipt of the draft of sale deed from the present applicant. Since respondent No. 2 has already paid an amount of 1.27 crores, now the said amount is required to be refunded to respondent No. 2. The present applicant is, therefore, directed to pay interest at 12 per cent per annum on the actual amount of respondent No. 2 lying with the Official Liquidator. As soon as this transaction is over and sale deed is executed and possession is handed over, the Official Liquidator shall file compliance report before the Court. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale of the properties of the company in liquidation by auction, the Courts' endeavour would be to fetch maximum price and, hence, the offer made by the applicant for Rs. 1.51 crores for the very same property which was sought to be purchased by respondent No. 2 at Rs. 1.27 crores should be considered and the order passed by this Court for confirming the sale in favour of respondent No. 2 should be recalled. In support of his submission, Mr. Desai has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divya Manufacturing Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Union Bank of India [2000] 26 SCL 280 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is the duty of the Court to see that the price fetched at the auction is an adequate price even though there is no suggestion of irregularity or fraud. It is further observed in the said judgment that before the delivery of possession and execution of sale deed, if certain offers are made by the parties, the same can certainly be considered by the Courts. Mr. Desai has, therefore, submitted that even in the present case also, the possession of movable property has not been handed over nor the sale deed of the land and building is executed in fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hence, the same should not be entertained by this Court. He has further submitted that it is a normal practice adopted by this Court that if during the auction, a party has participated and thereafter the said party withdraws at one stage from the auction, is not allowed to re-enter at a later stage. The applicant should not, therefore, be permitted to upturn the sale confirmation made in favour of respondent No. 2 without any reason available in law. He has further submitted that there are catena of judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue and only in cases of fraud, inadequate price of the assets, lack of following proper procedure in auction, inability or default by the purchaser in payment as per schedule of payment, etc., the Court would interfere. None of the ingredients is satisfied in the present application and, hence, there is no reason to interfere in the order of confirmation of sale passed by this Court earlier and the application is straightaway required to rejected. 7. In support of his submissions, Mr. Asthawadi relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are as under :-- Navalkha & Sons v. Ramanya Das [1969] 3 SCC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eposited with the Official Liquidator and only after satisfying about it, the Court has issued notice and granted interim relief. 13. If the above conduct of the applicant is to be viewed in light of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divya Manufactur- ing Co. (P.) Ltd. (supra), it is clear that though the sale was confirmed in favour of respondent No. 2, neither the possession of the movable properties was handed over nor the sale deed was executed in favour of respondent No. 2. Unless and until these formalities are over, it cannot be said that the transaction is complete and before that, if higher offer is made, the Court would certainly consider and at that point of time, it is to be seen as to whether the earlier transaction is by virtue of fraud. The real criteria is that the property of the company in liquidation should fetch maximum price and whether the properties can be adjudged on the basis of the offers which are received. Here in the present case, the applicant has offered Rs. 1.51 crores. If that is to be considered as market value then in that case, certainly the offer of Rs. 1.27 crores made by respondent No. 2 and accepted by the Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y compensated by way of interest on the said amount. The present applicant is, therefore, directed to pay interest at 12 per cent per annum on the actual amount of respondent No. 2 lying with the Official Liquidator. The calculation be made accordingly and the applicant shall deposit the said amount of interest with the Official Liquidator and on deposit of the said amount of interest, the possession of the property would be handed over as well as the sale deed would be executed in his favour. The amount of interest so deposited by the applicant would be refunded to respondent No. 2 along with the amount of Rs. 1.27 lakhs. 17. As soon as this transaction is over and sale deed is executed and possession is handed over, the Official Liquidator shall file compliance report before the Court. 18. Subject to the aforesaid direction and observation, this application is, accordingly, allowed. 19. At this stage, Mr. A.S. Asthawadi, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 has prayed for stay against the execution and implementation of this order as he wants to approach higher forum. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that during the pendenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
