9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent : K.S. Mahadevan, V. Jayaram, S.S. Naganand, Venkatesh Dodderi, P.S. Manjunath and Deepak ORDER 1. In OLR 106/2012, the Official Liquidator has prayed that the sale of the property relating to the company-in-liquidation be confirmed in favour of M/s. Godha Realtors (India) Private Ltd., and permit him to hand over the assets and the documents relating thereto. 2. The application in CA No, 152/2012 is filed by a minuscule shareholder of the company-in-liquidation praying that the bid at Rs. 35,00,00,000/- be rejected and the properties of the company-in-liquidation be sold bit by bit so as to fetch maximum proceeds. 3. The application in CA No.431/2012 is filed by India Sugars and Refineries Ltd., a company engaged, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s brought to sale by the sale notice dated 02.12.2011 published in 'Economic Times' all India Edition, Times of India' and 'Prajavani', Karnataka Editions as permitted by this Court in OLR No. 361/2011. In response about 31 buyers had participated in inspection and the opening of the tender was on 01.02.2011. The highest bid offered was a sum Rs. 28,00,00,000/-. On inter se bidding as per the terms and conditions, the highest offer in a. sum of Rs. 34,90,00,000 was made by Godha Realtors (India) Private Limited. 7. The said proceedings was brought to the notice of this Court by the Official Liquidator through OLR No.65/2012 dated 05.02,2012. The tenderers were required to be present before this Court on 08.02.2012 when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal and Appellate Tribunal. At that point in time, the applicant had filed C.A. No. 945/2008 for recalling the order. The order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal were also questioned in W.P.No.20575/2007 which was allowed on 12.02.2009. The possession was also restored to the company-in-liquidation in view of the order in C.A. No. 452/2005. The effect of the same was that the auction conducted by the secured creditor outside the winding up proceedings had been set at naught in view of the proceedings before the Company Court and the process of realising the assets was to be made in the instant proceedings through the Official Liquidator, Hence, to the said extent, the previous history is not very relevant in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at that point had perused the valuation report. The offer presently made was independent of the said valuation report and was more than what was contained therein. Neither the Official Liquidator nor the secured creditors more particularly the IFCI which is one of the secured creditor and also an equity investor holding 32.86% in equity has found anything wrong with the valuation. Further, the persons who responded to the offer were also not aggrieved that no reserve price was indicated or the valuation was not made known to them. In fact the proceedings of the Court indicates that was opened in the presence of the interested bidders who had raised their offer before this Court. Hence, the decision referred in a circumstance where the secur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and conditions where further amounts are to be paid to KIADB. The bidders in the auction being aware of these aspects have invested though all other terms would have to be worked out between them arid KIADB. At this juncture, the Official Liquidator could not have been expected to engage in this exercise on the ground that the change of land use would have fetched a higher price. Hence, the application is liable to be rejected. 13. The applicant in CA No. 431/2012 as noticed has nothing to do with debts of the company-in-liquidation nor is it interested in purchasing the assets. The applicant being another sugar factory in the vicinity is apprehending that the sale of the assets of the company-in-liquidation as a single unit can also resu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning of the assets and also the transfer of lease to the successful bidder by KIADB. They are therefore seeking deferment of confirmation pending disposal of the writ petition. 14. Having considered the objections to the said application, at the outset, it is to be noticed that the instant application is by an industry carrying on similar business as that of the company-in-liquidation, Therefore, merely on the apprehension that if the purchaser revives the industry, if would affect the business interest of the applicant, the confirmation of sale cannot be deferred. The writ petition is only a device to seek for such relief as the sale of the assets of the company-in-liquidation is as per the procedure contemplated under the Companies Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
