9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber, 2011 this Court had confirmed the auction of respondent- company's flat situated at 111, Pratap Chamber, First Floor, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, in favour of Auction Purchaser for a sum of Rs. 42,00,000/-. 3. The present applicant has offered to purchase the aforesaid property at Rs. 50,00,000/. To test the bona fides of the applicant, this Court vide order dated 8th November, 2011, had directed the applicant to deposit with the Registry of this Court a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- within a period of seven days - which the applicant has done. 4. Mr. Mayank Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant could not participate in the auction conducted by this Court on 5th October, 2011 due to short notice and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reased offer of Rs. 151 lakhs was accepted by the learned Company Judge vide order dated November 27, 2007. That order did not find favour with the Division Bench, which restored the first order passed by the learned Company Judge. If the order of the Division Bench is sustained, the creditors of the Company are bound to suffer because the amount available for repayment of the dues of the creditors would be a paltry sum of Rs. 127 lakhs. As against this, if the offer made by the intervenor-cum-promoter is accepted, the Official Liquidator will get an additional amount of more than Rs. 4.25 crores. The availability of such huge amount will certainly be in the interest of the creditors including GSIIC. Therefore, it is not possible to approve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rily be allowed, except on very limited grounds like fraud, otherwise no auction-sale will ever be complete. 12. It is not in dispute that the auction was an open auction after wide publicity in well-known newspapers. Hence, there was nothing to prevent M/s. Manibhadra Sales Corporation and M/s. Castwell Alloys Ltd. to have participated in the auction, but they did not do so. There is no allegation of fraud either in this case. Hence, in our opinion, there was no justification to set aside the confirmation of the sale." 6. Mr. Ashish Makhija, learned counsel for Official Liquidator supported the case of the applicant on the ground that as today a higher auction price is being offered, the Court must accept the same as it would be in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, if the Court gets a higher price, the Court must normally accept the same as by doing so, a fair price would be obtained and it would be in the best interest of the creditors, workmen and the company. 11. Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid as well as the fact that the present application for setting aside the auction/sale has been filed within a month of the order accepting the bid, the order dated 5th October, 2011 is recalled and the Official Liquidator is directed to prepare a fresh draft sale notice/advertisement and hand over the same to the applicant within one week. The advertisement would clearly stipulate that the reserve price would be Rs. 50,00,000/- and tender would be opened in Court on 26th March, 2012. It is made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
