As late as on December 5, 2006, both the matters appeared on Board.
1 was slightly lower and companyrect valuation should be Rs.
Pursuant to the said recommendation, the High Court passed an order for winding up of the Company on September 5, 1994.
2 crores within three days.
The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Champaran Sugar Company Limited was in financial doldrums.
10 lakhs.
On behalf of one Hanuman Industries India , its companynsel Ms. Geeta Luthra stated that the Hanuman Industries was prepared to pay Rs.3.51 crores.
Considering the nature of litigation, the Registry was directed to place the matter for final hearing and that is how the matter has been placed before us.
2 crores within three days.
1 paid Rs.
He, hence, preferred an appeal against the order of the Company Judge.
By the said order, the Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by Vishnu Kant Gupta first respondent herein and set aside the order passed by the Company Judge on February 12, 2007 in Miscellaneous Company Application No.
The respondents appeared and waived service.
1.50 crores on February 9, 2007.
Accordingly, respondent No.
The said fact ought to have been taken into companysideration by the Division Bench.
Accordingly, he passed an order for re advertisement of tenders and re invitation of offers.
One JHV Sugar offered Rs.
Notice was issued by this Court on August 27, 2007.
On January 31, 2001, the matter was taken up by the Company Judge.
But even before the service of numberice, he came to know about the dismissal of appeals and vacation of stay order and he deposited an amount of Rs.
It further appears that numberhing was done thereafter either by the parties or by the Division Bench of the High Court and both the matters remained pending.
On January 4, 2000, the High Court directed the Official Liquidator to take appropriate proceedings for sale of Barachakia and Chanpatia property of the Company in liquidation.
Even according to Company Judge, the offer made by the first respondent in 2001 was reasonable and hence it was accepted and there was numberground to interfere with the said action and the order passed by the Company Judge was illegal.
He felt that his offer of February, 2001 was the highest and more than six years had passed.
An advertisement was issued and tenders were invited.
1 herein had also made offer of Rs.3.51 crores payable in four equal quarterly instalments on companydition that the possession of the factory be given by the Official Liquidator upon payment of first instalment and on furnishing bank guarantee for the remaining amount.
1.50 crores.
The Court numbered that the respondent No.
1 had number paid the amount, but it was because of stay granted by the Division Bench in February, 2001.
1.55 crores by a bank draft and also gave an undertaking to pay Rs.
On February 12, 2007, he offered Rs.
An Official Liquidator was appointed under the Companies Act, 1956.
1 made first payment of Rs.
1 had shown his readiness and willingness to pay the amount and within a period of about one week, he paid more than Rs.
Meanwhile, however, other persons also gave offers.
Even thereafter, numberhing was done by him.
Unfortunately, however, two appeals were preferred and the Division Bench granted interim relief in February, 2001.
The respondent herein was very much aggrieved by the order passed by the Company Judge.
M s Hanuman Industries offered Rs.3.91 crores and Vishnu Kant Gupta finally offered Rs.
10,40,000/ towards interest as ordered by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Ltd. offered Rs.
The matter was negotiated with both the parties.
When appeals were dismissed, respondent No.
By way of ad interim relief, status quo as on that day was also granted.
For about six years, the appeals remained pending and stay operated.
Recommendation was made to that effect by BIFR and it was forwarded to the High Court of Allahabad.
Likewise, Sanjeev Kumar Chawdhary offered Rs.
Before the period of three months fixed for the payment of first instalment companyld expire on April 30, 2001, two Writ Appeals were filed against the order passed by the Company Judge and by orders dated February 7, 2001 and March 13, 2001, interim stay was granted by the Division Bench and operation of the order by the Company Judge was stayed.
In support of the said bid, three bank drafts totalling Rs.10 lakhs were deposited.
The Division Bench of the High Court companysidered the facts and circumstances of the case and held that the grievance of the appellant was well founded and the Company Judge was number justified in setting aside the highest offer made by the respondent and accepted by the Company Judge.
Thus, neither 25 amount 1.25 crores number 75 amount 3.75 crores was paid by him.
3 crores and also gave an undertaking to pay balance amount of Rs.
According to IFCI, valuation given by respondent No.
After the dismissal of appeals and vacation of stay, numberice was issued to Vishnu Kant Gupta on February 8, 2007 since he was the highest bidder.
He was served on February 14, 2007.
6 crores.
The Division Bench, therefore, held that at the most the first respondent should pay interest 10 from December 5, 2006 when the appeals were dismissed up to February 9, 2007 when the respondent No.
The parties were, therefore, asked whether they were willing to increase the offer.
5.21 crores.
The said amount came to about Rs.
Proceedings had been initiated under the Sick Industrial Companies Special Provisions Act, 1985 and Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction BIFR , by its order dated June 28, 1993, held that there was numberpossibility of rehabilitation of the Company and the Company must be ordered to be wound up.
Similarly, Shiv Shakti Chini Mills Pvt.
2 of 1993.
Appellants herein, namely, IFCI and IDBI have challenged the order passed by the Division Bench by filing the present appeal.
K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
4,16,000/ .
Nobody appeared on behalf of the appellants and both the appeals were dismissed for default and stay granted by the Division Bench came to be vacated.
The Company Judge in the circumstances felt that it would be in the interest of Company to re advertise and re invite tenders.
The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on May 21, 2007 in Special Appeal No.
5 crores as per the bid accepted by the Company Judge and Rs.
Vishnu Kant Gupta, respondent No.
Accordingly offer of Vishnu Kant Gupta was accepted.
232 of 2007.
6.50 crores.
