TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... que in favour of Registrar General of this Court today itself - the balance sale price may also be deposited within 15 days from today as provided in the conditions of sale and subject to other terms and conditions of the proclamation of sale – Decided against Petitioner. - CS (OS) 647/2006 and IA Nos. 12628/2013 (u/O 1 R10), 12631/2013(exemption) & 15316/2013 (u/S 151) - - - Dated:- 3-10-2013 - Jayant Nath,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. M. S. Ahluwalia, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Anil Airi, Mr.Ravi Krishan Chandna, Mr. Hemant Manjani and Mr.Dhruv Tamta, Advocate Mr.Rohit Priya Ranjan, Advocate for Bidder. JUDGMENT Jayant Nath, J. (Oral) IA No. 15051/2013 (Objections to the Auction Sale) 1. These are the objections filed by plaintiff No. 1 to the auction sale conducted by the Court Auctioneer on 26.07.2013 under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC. As per the report of the Court Auctioneer bid of DKG Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. is the highest at Rs.10.45 crores. This Court on 08.05.2013 had passed an order to conduct the auction of the suit property comprising of basement, ground floor and second floor of property No. W-152, Greater Kailash, Part 1, New Delhi at a reserve price ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat DKG Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. had deposited a draft of Rs. 1 crore which bears the name of Sh. Surinder Sahlot who is stated to have given the order to make the draft. It is stated that Sh. Surinder Sahlot as well as Ankush Pughat are together directors of Aerofield Flying Academy Pvt. Ltd. It is stated that Surinder Sahlot is the main man behind the bid and happens to be the man of the defendants. Reliance is placed on the provisions of Order 22 Rule 72 CPC to claim that a party to the proceedings cannot make a bid. 5. It is further stated that the Company-DKG Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. declared as the successful bidder by the Court Auctioneer is a dummy company just having authorised capital of Rs. 25 lacs and has no financial capacity to purchase the property in auction. It is stated that this so called successful bidder is only a speculator company who on taking loan will purchase the property and sell it for profit. Hence, it is stated that under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC, a fraud has been played on the court and the present auction bid is liable to be cancelled. 6. It is further stated that a perusal of the bid sheet of Court Auctioneer would show that completely an irregular process w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of plaintiff No. 3, had stated that the plaintiffs are not in a sound financial position to purchase the share of the defendants and would prefer a public auction. However, time was sought to find out a prospective buyer. On 22.02.2012, this Court noted that the plaintiff has failed to find any prospective buyer and accordingly, a direction was passed for sale of the property through public auction. The matter was fixed before the Registrar General for finalisation of the sale proclamation. The plaintiff thereafter, to further stall the matter, filed an application IA No.7512/2012 under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC seeking a direction to defendant No. 1 to produce its registration certificate, memorandum of association and article of association of defendant company and also the annual returns for the last five years. The court on 14.05.2012 noted that the plaintiff has not been appearing before the Registrar General and has been delaying the issue of proclamation of sale. It was noted that the plaintiff was deliberately trying to delay the matter. The matter was fixed before the Registrar General again while the application was kept pending. On 18.05.2012, the plaintiff moved IA. No. 9460 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 10 crores inasmuch as earlier when the Reserve Price was fixed at Rs. 15 crores no bids were received. Pursuant to the said order dated 8.5.2013, the bidding took place on 26.07.2013. On the same date, the plaintiff filed an appeal being FAO (OS) 338/2013 against order dated 08.05.2013. The Division Bench stayed the said order. However, subsequently as noted above, on 29.08.2013 the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as stated above. A perusal of the above order sheets shows that at every stage the plaintiff has repeatedly delayed the process of the auction. Repeated applications have been filed raising untenable pleas. The present application seems to be another such attempt. 12. The fact of the matter is that three bidders have made earnest deposit of Rs. 1 crore each and made the bids. The highest bid has been of Rs. 10.45 crores. Merely claiming that the three bidders are inter se connected to each other on account of there being some commonality of directors would not vitiate the bid process. The three different companies/ bidders‟ are registered under The Companies Act and are separate distinct entities. The contention of the plaintiff that on accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idding process is a contention which is not based on the record. The bidding sheet which is placed on record by the Court Auctioneer alongwith the report does not indicate which company has made the first bid. To argue that in the first round of bidding M/s Green Valley Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.gave a bid of Rs.10.20 crores, M/s DKG Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. gave a bid of Rs.10.10 crores and M/s Chase Avian Communication Pvt. Ltd. gave a bid of Rs.10.27 crores is a contention which is not based on the records inasmuch as this is not the order in which the bids are stated to have been made. The plaintiff is deliberately mis-reading the bid sheets. Even assuming if what is said by plaintiff was correct nothing has been shown as to why M/s.DKG Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. could not continue bidding even if its bid of Rs.10.10 crores in the first round of bidding was the lowest. The conditions of sale do not show that such a bidder cannot make another bid. Even otherwise, such a process has not caused any prejudice to the plaintiff. 16. Further, the reliance of learned counsel for the defendants on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Saheb Khan vs. Mohd. Yousufuddin and Ors.(supra) is in o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent application is dismissed. IA No. 12630/2013 (for depositing balance 15% of the bid amount), 21. This is an application under Order 151 CPC on behalf of DKG Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. for seeking extension of time for depositing balance 15% of the bid amount. It is the contention of the applicant that the bid took place on 26.07.2013. As per the terms and conditions of the bid, the successful bidder was to deposit 15% of the purchase money within three working days. The balance bid amount of the purchase money was to be paid within 15 days after the sale of the property. It is pointed out that on 26.07.2013, the Division Bench passed the stay order because of which the applicant has not been able to deposit the monies and inasmuch as the Court Auctioneer refused to accept the same. He submits that a cheque in favour of Registrar General of the High Court in the sum of Rs. 1,61,25,000/- is lying with him since then. A similar application was also stated to have been filed before the Division Bench, but the Division Bench is stated not to have dealt with the said application as the Appeal was withdrawn by the plaintiff. Learned counsel submits that he is carrying the cheque and is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
