9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... like on hand, in public interest. It may be noted that the applicant, when was communicated about the decision of not acceptance of his bid, was conveyed that it will be open for him to participate in the fresh auction. As per the new advertisement which is produced and also screen shared, fresh auction has to be conducted in terms of the order dated 14th June, 2018 of the Company Court in Company Application No.314 of 2015, aforesaid. Under various terms and conditions of the auction and as per the schedule of auction, the inspection of property was undertaken on 23rd June, 2021 from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The last date for receiving the bids and uploading of the documents including proof of payment is 06th July, 2021. The e-auction date is fixed to be 07th July, 2021 between 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. with auto extension clause of five minutes. The current auction shall be held, conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with the order dated 14th June, 2018 passed in Company Application No.314 of 2015 and the conditions mentioned therein shall govern to the present auction as well - The auction shall be conducted in association with the Official Liquidator in its all stage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SICOM Limited, it sought to exercise powers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. In the aforesaid Company Application No.314 of 2015, the Court considered the submissions of the parties, mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Finance Corporation v. Official Liquidator [(2005) 8 SCC 190] in which the legal position regarding the powers of the State Financial Corporation under the Act vis-a-vis powers of the Company Court were considered. Another decision of the Apex Court in A.P. State Financial Corporation v. Official Liquidator [(2000) 7 SCC 291] was also referred to, whereafter this Court stated thus, 11. Thus, as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the control of the Company Judge and the Official Liquidator, if authorized, can be only to ensure that the purpose of Section 529A is effectively achieved i.e. only to a limited extent and for the limited purpose of securing the right of the workers for distribution of their wages as pari passu charge. Learned advocate for the applicant has fairly stated before the Court that the Official Liquidator could be associated with the applicant in sale of the properties and that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng up proceedings is enforcing its security to recover its dues outstanding against the company in liquidation. 3.4 Accordingly, SICOM Limited was permitted to auction and sale the properties mentioned in the schedule in exercise of powers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act. In the entire process of valuation of the properties leading to the auction sale, it was directed that the Official Liquidator shall be associated in fixing the upset price and conducting the auction. It was further stated that approval of the Court would be sought for, for acceptance of the bid and confirmation of the sale in favour of the highest bidder. The sale proceeds were required to be deposited with the Official Liquidator. It was, at the same time, clarified that depositing of sale proceeds with the Official Liquidator would not mean that SICOM Limited had participated in the winding up proceedings. 3.5 It appears that in the auction so held, the present applicant was the only bidder who had submitted his bid at ₹ 09,61,00,000/-. The necessary demand draft towards earnest money was also furnished as per condition No.12 of the general terms and conditions. On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice for auction. As reproduced above, one of the prayers is also to direct respondent No.1 to file appropriate report before this Court for confirmation of sale of the scheduled properties in favour of the applicant. 4. What was vehemently contended by learned advocate Mr.Tirthraj Pandya for learned advocate Mr.Parthiv Shah for the applicant that in condition No.12(c) of the aforesaid order dated 14th June, 2018 passed in Company Application, a clear stipulation was imposed on the respondents that respondent No.1 shall associate the Official Liquidator while fixing the upset price and further that it shall seek approval of the Court for acceptance of the bid and confirmation of sale. It was submitted that the aforesaid condition No.12(c) of the order was defied and while taking the impugned decision reflected in communication dated 14th May, 2021, approval of the Company Court was not asked for. It was submitted that neither the respondent No.1 SICOM Limited nor the Official Liquidator who was also responsible for compliance, approached the Court. It was submitted that non-compliance of the said condition was contemptuous and further that it seriously prejudiced the rights ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the event of acceptance of the bid only, as per condition No.12(c) in the order. 4.4 It was tried to submit by learned advocate for respondent No.1 that the Company Court had minimal role and that in conducting the auction, respondent No.1 company was not a participatory in the liquidation proceedings which is clarified by the Company Court in order dated 14th June, 2018. It was submitted further that respondent No.1 was justified in conducting auction and take decision in that regard within the domain of its rights under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills [(2002) 3 SCC 501] . Therein the Supreme Court held in the context of Section 29 of the Act, inter alia that dominant consideration in the sale by Corporation of defaulter s properties mortgaged etc. is to secure best possible price for the property. It was also held that where the bid price in the public auction are depressed, tender should be invited after proper publicity. 4.5 After relying on the observations in paragraph No.13 of the Haryana Financial Corporation (supra0 , learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t acceptance of his bid, was conveyed that it will be open for him to participate in the fresh auction. 5.2 As per the new advertisement which is produced and also screen shared, fresh auction has to be conducted in terms of the order dated 14th June, 2018 of the Company Court in Company Application No.314 of 2015, aforesaid. Under various terms and conditions of the auction and as per the schedule of auction, the inspection of property was undertaken on 23rd June, 2021 from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The last date for receiving the bids and uploading of the documents including proof of payment is 06th July, 2021. The e-auction date is fixed to be 07th July, 2021 between 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. with auto extension clause of five minutes. 6. In the circumstances, when further developments have taken place including that fresh auction has been announced by issuing public advertisement on 10th June, 2021 and fresh bids will be received, for which as stated above, last date is 06th July, 2021 upto 06.00 p.m., this Court does not consider it apposite, in the context of facts of the present case, to upset the schedule to stay the entire auction. 6.1 In view of the above aspect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
