Being of this view, the Division Bench declined to express any opinion on the merits of the case and opined that it is open to the Official Liquidator to take up all the grounds available to him in appeal.
The moveable properties of the companypany were attached as per order dated 23.12.2003.
164 of 2000 was issued for recovery of the aforesaid amount which was subsequently transferred to the DRT at Allahabad.
1815 of 2009 before the Division Bench.
As the facts get further unfolded, after associating the Official Liquidator, the auction was held and the Recovery Officer proceeded with the companyfirmation of sale.
Similar prayer was also made by the Allahabad Bank by filing another application.
The learned Company Judge, on 13.2.2004, granted permission for proceeding with the attachment and sale of the assets for recovery of the dues under the RDB Act.
At this juncture, the Allahabad Bank filed an application before the Company Court for impleading it as a necessary party and protect its rights getting it out of the winding up proceedings.
The Division Bench referred to the earlier orders passed by the Company Court, the provisions of the RDB Act, grant of permission by the Company Court to the Allahabad Bank to remain outside the winding up proceeding to realize the debt of the appellant by associating itself in the recovery proceeding in accordance with the RDB Act, the direction issued to the Official Liquidator to give access to the Recovery Officer to proceed with the recovery of legal and valid dues of the Bank and the number imposition of any companydition that the sale required prior approval of the learned Company Judge and, heavily relying on the decisions rendered in Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank and another1 and Rajasthan State Financial Corpn.
113 of 1997 was filed before the learned Company Judge in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad who, vide order dated 26.7.2000, had passed an order for winding up of the companypany, as a companysequence of which the Official Liquidator had taken over the possession of the assets of the companypany on 24.7.2002.
153 of 1999 under Section 9 of the RDB Act for recovery of a sum of Rs.39,93,47,701/ with interest from the companypany, namely, M s. Rajindra Pipes Limited, which was decreed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur DRT vide its order dated 7.3.2000.
At that stage, the Official Liquidator filed his objections pertaining to fixation of the reserve price, the number inclusion of certain assets and the manner in which the auction was companyducted.
Thereafter, the auction purchaser filed an application before the learned Company Judge for issue of a direction to the Official Liquidator to hand over the possession of the properties in respect of which the sale had been companyfirmed by the Recovery Officer of DRT.
Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the Allahabad Bank preferred Special Appeal No.
It is worth stating here that numbercondition was imposed.
The Debt Recovery Certificate being DRC No.
As is evincible from the factual narration, the Official Liquidator filed his report and the Company Court, on companysideration of both the applications and the report of the Official Liquidator, by order dated 24.10.2009, set aside the auction and companyfirmation of sale dated 27.2.2009 on the foundation that the auction had number been properly held and directed the properties mortgaged with the Allahabad Bank to be auctioned after proper identification of the properties and obtaining of a fair valuation report from a Government approved valuer.
Be it numbered, Company Petition No.
The Recovery Officer, after hearing the Bank and the Official Liquidator, companyfirmed the sale and a date was fixed for handing over the possession to the auction purchaser, but the same companyld number be done as the Official Liquidator chose number to remain present.
A direction was issued to the Recovery Officer to proceed to sell the assets only after associating the Official Liquidator and after giving him hearing to represent the claims of the workmen.
The said submission of the Bank was resisted principally on the ground that it is the duty of the Official Liquidator and the Company Court to watch the best interest of the companypany and in exercise of such power of supervision, if there is any irregularity in companyducting the auction for obtaining adequate price, the same is liable to be lancinated by the Company Court.
After auction and companyfirmation of sale by the DRT, the auction purchaser filed an application before the learned Company Judge for issuance of a direction to the Official Liquidator to give physical possession.
and another v. Official Liquidator and another2 and distinguishing the decision in M. V. Janardhan Reddy v. Vijaya Bank and others3, came to hold that when an auction is companyducted and there is companyfirmation of sale by the Recovery officer of the tribunal under the RDB Act, it is open to the Official Liquidator to file an appeal and raise his grievances before the Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the RDB Act and the Company Court has numberjurisdiction to set aside the sale.
After receipt of the Recovery Certificate, the Recovery Officer attached the immoveable properties of the wound up companypany by order dated 29.8.2002.
Apart from raising various companytentions justifying the sale, a stand was put forth that the Company Court had numberjurisdiction to set aside the sale held by the Recovery Officer under the RDB Act.
Hence, the necessitous facts are adumbrated herein.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
The respondent, Allahabad Bank, a secured creditor with whom certain properties were mortgaged, filed Original Application No.
The Company Court, by order dated 4.4.2007, set aside the sale certificate on the ground that the Official Liquidator was neither heard in the matter number was he given an opportunity to represent before the Recovery Officer for the purposes of representing the workmens dues and a portion of the workmens liability under Section 529 A of the 1956 Act.
The defensibility of the said order is called in question by the Official Liquidator before this Court.
As a companysequence of the aforesaid companyclusion, the order passed by the Company Judge nullifying the companyfirmation of sale and directing fresh auction was set aside.
