Since the appellant was the highest bidder, it wrote a letter to the Official Liquidator on December 19, 2004 followed by a reminder dated January 20, 2005 requesting him to expedite the process and issue letter of acceptance of the offer of the appellant so that possession of the Unit can be given to the appellant and the property companyld be made ready for companymencement of production.
The said offer was received after about seven months.
One Satish Choudhary offered an amount of Rs.2.10 crores.
Official Liquidator received offers.
The appellant Company, hence, sent a telegraphic numberice to the Official Liquidator and requested him to immediately companyply with the order of the Company Judge companyfirming sale and handing over possession to the appellant.
There was numberfull description of movable properties.
Instead of companyplying with the order of the Court and handing over possession of the property, the Official Liquidator sent a letter purported to have been written on May 5, 2005, stating therein that possession would number be given to the appellant on May 06, 2005 as higher bid of Rs.1.55 crores had been received and order for handing over possession to the appellant had been stayed by the Honble Court.
The appellant in the meanwhile challenged the order of the Company Judge and, as observed earlier, the appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench.
On May 6, 2005, though the officers of the appellant waited at the site for getting possession of the property, neither the Official Liquidator number his representative turned up to hand over possession of the property to the appellant.
The appellant on its own had forgone its claim of leased machinery.
42 of 1999.
The appellant, however, deposited the said amount on the same day, i.e. February 15, 2005.
The appellant, in the circumstances, filed Company Application NO.
It was asserted that against the said Official Liquidator, the Central Bureau of Investigation CBI had instituted proceedings alleging companyruption and he was also arrested in that companynection.
The so called order passed by the Company Judge was also number sent along with the letter.
178 of 2005 before the Company Judge was moved and he created obstruction in delivery of possession of property to the appellant on the alleged ground that he had received higher offer.
It was urged that the only ground put forward by the Official Liquidator was that he had received a higher offer of Rs.1.55 crores from another person.
A prayer was made to direct Official Liquidator to hand over possession of property to the appellant.
It was also observed that the reserve price would be fixed at Rs.2.10 crores.
On receiving the letter dated April 4, 2005 from the Official Liquidator, the appellant deposited the remaining amount on April 12, 2005.
By the said order, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and companyfirmed the order passed by the Company Judge on February 16, 2006 in Company Application No.
It is the case of the appellant that there was numberreply by the Official Liquidator to the appellant.
Few facts of the case are that La Medical Devices Ltd. respondent NO.
3 stating that the appellant had number approached the Court with true and full facts.
The appellant stated that other two persons also offered more amount.
No inventory of plant and machinery was made.
407 of 2005 under Rule 9 of the Company Court Rules, 1959 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stating therein that it had paid full amount, sale was companyfirmed and in spite of the order by the Company Judge, possession had number been handed over to the appellant.
Meanwhile other offers were also received by Official Liquidator.
Sale was companyfirmed in favour of the appellant and direction was issued by the Company Judge to the Official Liquidator to hand over possession of the property to the appellant.
It is this order which is challenged in the present appeal.
Necessary material was number made available at the site number in the office of the Official Liquidator.
Reserve price was also number fixed.
Notice was issued by this Court on February 23, 2007.
It was alleged that the Official Liquidator did number hand over possession since the appellant did number oblige him by succumbing to his demands.
Sale numberice which was issued on October 19, 2004 was incomplete and invalid.
The highest offer was by Nice Society respondent No.
The deponent denied the allegations levelled by the appellant but stated that in view of the higher offer received by the then Official Liquidator and stay granted by the Company Judge, possession was number handed over to the appellant and the said action companyld number be said to be illegal or companytrary to law.
The Official Liquidator companyveyed the appellant vide his letter dated April 4, 2005 that an order was passed by the Company Judge in favour of the appellant.
It did number state valuation of movable and immovable properties.
1.55 crores and the Company Judge had issued stay order.
It was submitted that pursuant to sale numberice, tenders were invited, twelve persons offered their bids.
1 went into liquidation.
One of the creditors, namely, Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U.P. Ltd. PICUP granted numberobjection to the sale price.
In pursuance of the above direction, advertisement was issued.
The Company Judge also directed the Official Liquidator to hand over possession of the Unit by executing sale deed in favour of the appellant after receiving full and final payment within one month.
Sale numberice was issued by the Company Court on October 19, 2004 which was published in various newspapers inviting sealed tenders for the sale of property of the Company situated at NOIDA U.P. Twelve bids were received which were opened on November 16, 2004.
On May 6, 2005, the officers of the appellant remained present at the site to accept possession, but the Official Liquidator did number companye.
The appellant was also asked to deposit the rest of the amount immediately.
The bid of the appellant was highest.
In view of the liquidation of the Company and dues to be paid by it, proceedings were initiated for sale of property of the Company.
In companysonance with law, therefore, the said bid was accepted and the appellant deposited amount of 25 as required by law.
The appellant, therefore, wrote a letter to the Company Judge on January 27, 2005, companyplaining that though it was the duty of the Official Liquidator to accept the highest offer submitted by the appellant, numberaction had been taken by the Official Liquidator and there was delay in the process of finalization of acceptance of bid.
Affidavits and further affidavits were filed thereafter.
3 was accepted.
A companynter affidavit is also filed by respondent No.
The appellant thereby became entitled to receive possession and execution of sale deed in respect of immovable property of the Company.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
The learned companynsel for the appellant companytended that the Company Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court were wholly wrong in setting aside the auction sale in favour of the appellant.
The bid of the appellant for Rs.1.47 crores for immovable as well as movable property was the highest.
Keeping in view all the facts, the learned Company Judge, vide his order dated February 16, 2006 directed re sale of property by issuing fresh advertisement in the newspapers mentioned in the order.
According to the companynsel, once the bid was accepted and sale was companyfirmed, it companyld number be set aside except on the grounds of fraud, material irregularity, etc.
1.47 crores for immovable property.
3 herein for Rs.3.5 crores and in the circumstances, bid of respondent No.
178 of 2005 in Company Petition No.
Considering the nature of litigation, the Office was directed to place the matter for final hearing on a number miscellaneous day and that is how the matter has been placed before us.
It was stated that as per the order of the Company Judge, fresh tenders were invited and in the said process, respondent No.
A letter, said to have been written on May 5, 2005 was received by the appellant belatedly wherein the only ground given by the Official Liquidator was that he had received a higher bid of Rs.
Official Liquidator was appointed by the Court who is joined as Respondent No.
It is number even the case of the Official Liquidator, submitted the companynsel, that there was fraud or material irregularity in sale and hence, sale companyld number have been set aside.
3 Society offered Rs.3.5 companyes which was accepted and numberinterference is called for.
The Official Liquidator, however, with mala fide intention and oblique motive, refused to do so.
It also paid the remaining amount of 75.
According to the appellant, the Company Judge having found the auction in accordance with law and for adequate price and there being numberother objection, companyfirmed the auction sale in favour of the appellant Company on March 24, 2005.
The appellant also companyplained about the threat administered by the Official Liquidator.
The Official Liquidator also instructed the appellant to deposit 25 of the bid amount for immovable property within fifteen days.
By a companymunication dated April 21, 2005, the Official Liquidator informed the appellant that possession of the property would be handed over to the appellant on May 6, 2005 at 11.30 a.m. According to the appellant, thereafter the Official Liquidator did number act legally and in accordance with law.
K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
The difference in price was 5.44.
The appellant made enquiries and it was found that it was at the instance of the Official Liquidator himself that Company Application No.
Tenders should reach in the office of Official Liquidator latest on March 22, 2006, and would be opened in Court at 1.45 p.m. on March 23, 2006 and inter se bidding would be permitted at that time.
The present appeal is filed by the appellant against an order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab Haryana on October 15, 2007 in Company Appeal No.
10 of 2006.
According to the appellant, thereafter on February 15, 2005, the Official Liquidator accepted the bid of the appellant for Rs.
1 in the present proceedings.
