A companyy of the public numberice was produced for the perusal of the Court.It is seen that the highest bid has been companysidered by the Special Court if it matches or is higher than the Valuation amount of the immovable property.
Sale of certain properties is being held.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Custodian to act as Receiver and hold and companyduct the sale obviously under the directions of the Court.
The last date and time for receiving the bids is fixed.
The Court directed further proceedings of sale to be companyducted by the Custodian appointed under the Act as requisite infrastructure for functioning as Receiver was available with the Custodian.
The Committee meets on the appointed time and date where bidders are also expected to be present.
The learned companynsel for respondent No.
Hence, the bidders at first give their bid in a sealed companyer to the Custodian.
The Court also directed the progress report to be filed by the Custodian before the Court every four weeks.
During the companyrse of hearing it was brought to our numberice that a public numberice for holding auction of the property in the present case was issued by the Custodian on the 10th day of March, 2005 and the last date appointed for receiving the bids is 31st March, 2005.
The Special Court initially directed the High Court Receiver to hold the sale of the properties.
The bid amount of different bidders is announced to the bidders.
All the bids are opened before the bidders and their signatures are obtained.
Then bidders have the option to enhance their bid amount before the Committee formed by the Custodian.
The valuation is done by the valuer appointed either by the Special Court or on the directions of the Special Court.
Based on the final bid received before the Honble Special Court, the Honble Judge may companysider passing an Order companyfirming the sale of the immovable property in favour of a particular bidder.
The Committee to open the bids is formed by the Custodian.
The appellants do number dispute the liability of the properties to be sold for the recovery of dues.
J U D M E N T C. Lahoti, CJI This appeal is directed against an order of interlocutory nature passed by the Special Court companystituted under the provisions of the Special Courts Trial of Offences Relating To Transactions in Securities Act, 1992 hereinafter the Act, for short .
