Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (3) TMI 1234

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... K. Moni (Official Liquidator) JUDGMENT K. ABRAHAM MATHEW J. The first respondent is a company. It is a debtor of the the 2nd respondent Kerala state Industrial Development Corporation. In CP No.25/2006 filed by the 2nd respondent the court ordered winding up of the 1st respondent and appointed the Official Liquidator attached to the High Court as the Liquidator of the company. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Court the Official Liquidator took possession of all the properties of the 1st respondent Company. On 11.04.2011 the court permitted the Official Liquidator to sell the immovable properties of the Company. The Official Liquidator put up for sale 63.160 cents comprised in Survey Nos.444/4 and 444/5 with the building thereon s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tee can be withdrawn by the KSIDC in case the applicant in Co.Appln.No.357/2013 becomes the successful bidder and only the balance amount need be paid under the circumstances. The Bank Guarantee shall be furnished on or before 15.1.2014 and fresh sale shall be conducted on or before 28.2.2014. The sale already conducted will stand set aside on the applicant in Co.Appln. No.357/2013 paying Rs. 1 lakh to the applicant in Co.Appln.No.249/2013 and furnishing Bank Guarantee for Rs. 20 lakhs as directed above. The upset price for the fresh auction shall be fixed at Rs. 50 lakhs and the Official Liquidator is directed to file fresh terms and conditions for the sale. The bid of the applicant in Co.Appln.No.249/2013 shall be accepted and the sale .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ice and therefore even if a person makes an offer after confirmation of the sale, to purchase the property at higher amount, the court is not bound to conduct an enquiry or set aside the sale". What is significant is that the observation is that the court is not bound to conduct an enquiry or set aside the sale and not that in the absence of allegation of fraud or other vitiating circumstance, the court shall not set aside the sale. 6. The duty of a court in court sale is laid down in Navalkha and Sons v. Ramanya Das. (AIR 1970 SC 2037): "The principles which should govern confirmation of sale are well established. Where the acceptance of the offer by the Commissioners is subject to confirmation of the Court, the offerer does not by mere a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... herwise, decree holders can never get the property of the debtor sold. Nor is it right to judge the unfairness of the price by hindsight wisdom. May be, subsequent events, not within the ken of the executing Court when holding the sale, may prove that had the sale been adjourned a better price could have been had. What is expected of the judge is not to be a prophet but a pragmatist and merely to make a realistic appraisal of the factors, and, if satisfied that, in the given circumstances, the bid is acceptable, conclude the sale. The Court may consider the fair value of the property, the general economic trends, the large sum required to be produced by the bidder, the formation of a syndicate, the futility of postponements and the possibil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the 3rd respondent that if he does not bid the property for Rs. 50,00,000/-, he is ready to forfeit to the second respondent-creditor the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- for which he has been ordered to furnish bank guarantee in the impugned order. This is a procedure unknown to law. The court can act only within the framework of law. How can it order forfeiture of the amount to the second respondent who has no right to it. 12. The facts and circumstances only justify the conclusion that if the sale is set aside at the request of the third respondent and the property is put up for sale again, court auction sale will become a mockery. The third respondent who did not participate in the earlier three court auctions appears to be a fortune seeker .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates