9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1061X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 1 of 2008 and the same is liable to be dismissed. For the reasons already stated above, we see no relevance or justification for even entertaining any applications moved before this court by subsequent bidders. Firstly for the reasons that the interest of the secured creditor has been well taken care of by the order of the learned single judge, inasmuch as the amount has to be now given with an interest of 24 per cent. and secondly, since there was no challenge to the order of this court dated September 20, 2005, by any of the bidders. Appeal dismissed. - COMPANY APPEALS NOS. 1 & 2 OF 2008 - - - Dated:- 26-12-2010 - PRAFULLA C. PANT AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ. Naresh Pant, Ms. Menka Tripathi, Anil Kumar Joshi, U.K. Uniyal, San ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed June 29, 2004 and thereafter according to wide publicity for the auction sale, the auction sale took place on April 5, 2005. In the auction sale, apart from the participants the secured creditor of the company, i.e., the present creditor were also present. Admittedly, the highest bid was Rs. 52,50,000 of respondent No.2, i.e., M/s. Shubham Enterprises. Being the highest bidder, respondent No. 2 deposited an earnest money of Rs. 5,30,000 and the remaining bid amount, i.e., Rs. 47,20,000 was to be deposited within a stipulated time. This auction sale was confirmed by an order of this court dated September 20, 2005. It is again an admitted fact that none of the prospective bidders have made any application before this court for recall of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e secured creditor is that since the auction purchaser has violated the necessary condition inasmuch as he has not deposited the sale consideration within the stipulated period, the auction sale itself is liable to be cancelled as non est and no indulgence is liable to be given to him any further. Moreover, it was also pleaded that the secured creditor is liable to get the best price in an auction purchase and the best price is not what has been offered by respondent No. 2 but there are people who are offering Rs.1,00,00,000 as of now. This contention of the appellant, however, has been much diluted inasmuch as M/s. S. O. S. Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., who is presently impleaded as one of the respondents and who is offering higher price has w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court." 7. Therefore, we see that whereas rule 7 specifically gives power to the court to extend the time, rule 9 is an inherent power before the company judge to pass order in order to meet the ends of justice. We find that the extension of time granted by the learned company judge was ultimately in the interest of justice and there was no anomaly in the same. As such, we find no merit in Company Appeal No. 1 of 2008 and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. For the reasons already stated above, we see no relevance or justification for even entertaining any applications moved before this court by subsequent bidders. Firstly for the reasons that the interest of the secured creditor h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
