9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1010X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 by the Ex-Promoter Director of the first respondent M/s. Manikya Plastichem Private Limited which is under liquidation, seeking for reopening the auction conducted by this Court on 4-3-2011 and to permit the second applicant to submit his offer for Rs. 4.10 Crores before confirmation of sale of the assets of the first respondent-company in liquidation. 2. In the application he has contended that he was Promoter Director of the first respondent-company. He tendered his resignation to the post of Directorship on 9-5 2006 and he has transferred all his shares to the existing shareholders during November 2006. Immediately after his resignation, he informed the same to the State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Saraswathipuram, Mysore requesting them to discharge him from the guarantee. The said issued is pending in O.S.No.790/2008. 3. He claims that he was out of station for 25 days and during his absence, the property of the first respondent-Company was auctioned for Rs. 3,90,00,000 which is far below the market value. Subsequently, he found that the second applicant is ready to purchase the assets of the first respondent-Company for Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion reports (Rs. 3.40 Crores Rs. 3.99 Crores) respectively which are placed on record, which would clearly go to show that value of the assets of the Company in liquidation has been reduced from Rs. 5.14 Crores to 3.99 Crores. The valuation of the assets as per valuation report by Sri. S.V. Srinivas submitted on behalf of the secured creditor is at Rs. 3.99 Crores and valuation of the assets as per valuation report submitted by Sri. H.S. Sheshagiri submitted on behalf of the Official liquidator is at Rs. 3.40 Crores. In the bids submitted by the bidders pursuant to the advertisement dated 2-2-2011 published by the Official Liquidator the highest bid that was received was at Rs. 3.32 Crores by Sri. K.N. Shivaswamy. The said report of the Official Liquidator in OLR 94/2011 is placed for approval by this Court and for permitting Court auction. In pursuance to the notices issued by the O.L to the six (6) bidders who had participated in the public auction conducted by the O.L on 21-2-2011 three bidders have appeared before the Court and participated in the Court auction. As per minutes recorded of even date (which is part and parcel of this order) in the said Court auction conducted a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king this fact also into consideration the bid offered by the highest offer (namely Sri. K.N. Shivaswamy) came to be accepted. The very same representative of the applicant company who was present in the court auction conducted by 4-3-2011 and who was also the participant in all other earlier bids has now come up with the present application contending that at the time of Court auction, Sri. K.N. Shivaswamy has stated that he would utilise the property in question for charitable purpose and now it is proposed to be utilised for commercial purposes. No material is placed in this regard by the present applicant. This Court would not go into such a contention inasmuch as it is concerned only with securing the best price for the assets of the company in liquidation. As such contention of the applicant cannot be accepted. 7. One another aspect which also requires to be noticed is that applicant in question who had participated in the auction proceedings on 4-3-2011 is an engineering graduate conversant with all worldly affairs and is also aware about the proceedings that was conducted in the open Court on 4.03.2011 and having consciously participated, offered its bid, accepted the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esented by Sri. Thomas V Peter filed his objections inter alia contending that since the day 3-4-2011 happens to be Sunday and 4-4-2011 happens to be the Government Holiday, next working day i.e. on 5-4-2011 the cheque was handed over to the Official Liquidator and the Official Liquidator presented the cheque on 6-4-2011 and the amount has been drawn subsequently. There is no delay on the part of the second respondent. With a view to stall the acceptance of bid, the Ex-Director filed the present application and sought for dismissal of the same. Further, he also contended that earlier similar attempts made by MGM Pooja (Pvt) Limited were also dismissed by this Court with cost of Rs. 20,000/- and sought for dismissal of the application with exemplary costs. 9. Sri. G. Kirshnamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the applicant relying upon some of the judgments in [2008] 10 SCC 440 ( PCS Software Solutions Ltd. v. LA Medical Devices Ltd.; Usmansab Hatelsahab v. R.L. Meharwade AIR 1999 SC 96 and an unreported judgment made in C.A.No.889/2002 disposed of on 17-11-2003, contended that the Court has power to reopen the case if there is a highest bidder who is ready to pay mor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
