9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me time the official liquidator has informed to this Court that the total expenditure incurred from the office of official liquidator in preparation of the valuation report and the publication of the auction notice of the subject property in question including other ancillary charges is approx. ₹ 12 Lakhs and taking the matter in totality & the fact in particular that the appellant is ready & willing to deposit the remainder of 75% along with interest @ 24% within the time which this Court may consider appropriate, in our considered view the appellant deserves indulgence to deposit the remainder of 75% of the auction sale with interest @ 24% within a period of seven days invoking clause 12(iii) of the terms and conditions of the auction notice. Accordingly, in the light of what has been observed above while setting aside the order of the Ld. Company Judge impugned dt.13-5-2016, we grant opportunity to the present appellant to deposit the balance ₹ 53,62,500 (75% remainder) + ₹ 3,93,250 (interest @ 24% for the period from 16-5-2016 to 4-9-2016)= total ₹ 57,55,750 positively within seven days from today with no further extension and we make it clear that if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he official liquidator in all received 15 tenders for Lot no.1 as scheduled on 10-3-2016 all the 15 tenders were opened by the official Liquidator in the presence of intending buyers and the interse bidding was also held amongst the tenderers who were present and the highest bid offered for Lot no.1 is for a sum of ₹ 71,50,000/- of the present appellant in reference to the reserved price of ₹ 31,06,480/-. The copy of the bid sheet dt.10-3-2016 is on record Annx.R1/1 and it reveals that initially none of the bidder proposed more than ₹ 35 Lakhs except the bidder Sh.Gopal Goyal who though offered for Lot no.1 a sum of ₹ 71 Lakh but didn't record his presence on 10-3-2016 and thus in comparison to the present appellant the second highest bidder for Lot no.1 recorded their presence has not exceeded ₹ 36,80,000/-. The Company Court vide its order dt.15-3-2016 accepted the highest bid of the present appellant for Lot no.1 for a sum of ₹ 71,50,000/- obviously as per the terms conditions indicated in the tender notice and in furtherance thereto the official liquidator issued acceptance letter dt.15-3- 2016 to the concerned bidder as per the terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of fund requested to grant reasonable time considered appropriate and is ready to deposit the remainder amount along with interest which may yield on account of the the alleged delay in depositing the remainder of 75% and taking note of the fact situation we called upon the respondents vide order dt.10-8-2016 to file affidavit indicating the interest which may yield on account of delay in depositing the remainder of 75% of the auction bid and in compliance thereof affidavit has been filed by the respondent reserving their rights to contest the matter on merits and it is stated that for the delay of three months on the remainder of 75%, interest chargeable is @ 24% it comes to ₹ 3,21,750/- and thus the total amount becomes ₹ 53,62,500 (remainder 75%) + ₹ 3,21,750 (interest @ 24%) = ₹ 56,84,250/- and after this fact came on record we asked the counsel for appellant as to whether his client is ready to deposit the total amount which includes the payment of remainder 75% along with 24% interest over the said amount as being indicated by the respondent in their affidavit filed in pursuance of the order of the Court. Counsel for appellant after seeking instructi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt in monthly installments if considers proper in the given facts and circumstances. It manifests from the record that the winding up order came to be passed by the Company Court on 12-5- 2006 of the company in liquidation and the subject property has been put to auction after 10 years and whatever amount the subject land may fetch the sale proceeds received on auction will certainly be used/utilized for disbursing to its secured/unsecured creditors on pro rata basis and technically what is being pleaded by the respondent's counsel might have some substance but in the present scenario this Court can take stock of the situation that the winding up of the company took place way back on 12-5-2006 the subject property when put to auction with the reserved price of ₹ 31,06,480/-, 15 tenders were received opened on 10-3-2016 the bid sheet is self explanatory that amongst those who participated and recorded their presence no one offered the bid above ₹ 35 Lakhs and as regards the present appellant is concerned his bid is double the reserved price of ₹ 71,50,000/- indisputably the bid was approved by the Company Court vide order dt.15-3-2016 and the remaind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
