9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 890X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vertisement or fixing any reserve price for assets cannot be sustained in law, particularly, when predecessor Official Liquidator reported that property put in auction was of much higher valuation – Having considered illegality and irregularity committed in auction sale of property, entire process was vitiated – Company Judge also failed to exercise its judicial discretion to see that properties were sold at reasonable price – Therefore, impugned judgment passed by High Court hereby set aside – Official Liquidator directed to recover possession of properties and proceed with fresh auction in accordance with procedure established by law – Decided in favour of Appellant. - Civil Appeal Nos. 6055-6056 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also granted permission to assess the valuation in terms of order dated 23.02.2000. The Official Liquidator filed an application for selling the assets of the appellant-company through a public auction and it was allowed on 11.08.2003. The public auction was to be held on 29.09.2003. 5. The appellant-company filed an application to stay the auction on the ground that its assets worth ₹ 7 crores were going to be auctioned without fixing the minimum reserve price and after issuing the auction sale notice only once. The appellant accordingly expressed apprehension about the highest price being secured. The Company Judge disposed of the application vide order dated 26.09.2003 refusing to interfere with the auction and directed the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... la fide intention appointed an ineligible valuer, Mr. S. B. Bhargava, to value the assets of the appellant-company. Mr. S. B. Bhargava was alleged to have drastically and illegally reduced the value of the assets of the appellant-company to ₹ 76.80 lakhs and his report was submitted to the High Court by the Official Liquidator. The same was alleged to have led to the issuance of an erroneous auction notice which did not mention minimum reserve price and many other vital details and which notice only came to the knowledge of a very limited number of individuals. The auction was further challenged on the ground of procedural irregularity. 8. One Advocate Mr. Sharad Sharma appeared before the High Court on 13.04.2004 claiming to repre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any, was in the order dated 28.05.2004 which was appealed against by the appellant-company. The High Court held that the appeal filed by the appellant-company was dismissed mainly because the sale was confirmed in favour of respondent no. 3, possession handed over and encumbrances created, before any steps were taken by the appellant-company. The High Court accordingly dismissed the review application vide judgment dated 25.09.2012. 12. Hence, the present appeals. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the entire facts of the case and the order passed by the High Court. 14. Prima facie, it appears that the objections raised by the appellant were not properly considered inasmuch as the objections we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
