Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2015 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 622 - HC - Companies LawAppeal against order of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal(DRAT) - Confirmation of the highest bid - Interest on refund - Held that:- The above paragraph is a complete answer to the contention of the petitioner that the confirmation of sale had already taken place or the DRT had directed the bank to confirm the petitioner’s bid. The said paragraph lucidly and in clear terms records that the bank was at liberty to precede with regard to confirmation of sale as per law. No affirmative or specific direction was made on the application filed by the petitioner that the bid should be confirmed. This establishes and proves that till the said date i.e. 29.1.2013, there was no confirmation of the bid. Thereafter also, the bank did not confirm or accept the bid of the petitioner. There could be some merit in the contention of the petitioner that the letter dated 19th February, 2013 rejecting and not confirming their bid was sent/dispatched on 22nd February, 2013 i.e. after the sale certificate was issued on 20th February, 2013 in favour of the fourth respondent, but this reason or ground is not sufficient and a good cause to reject or negate the sale certificate and to issue a direction for confirming the bid given by the petitioner. The stand of the bank that they had not confirmed or accepted the bid of the petitioner is correct. Thus no concluded and binding contract existed, compelling the bank to execute the sale certificate or deed in favour of the petitioner. The bank could not have rejected the petitioner’s bid without receiving payment from the fourth respondent. It was natural for them to await payment from the fourth respondent, before rejecting the petitioner’s bid and inform them. The highest bidder cannot have any vested right to claim confirmation of his bid or quotation. Of course, if the bid is wrongly rejected in a capricious and arbitrary manner, the allegation can be examined but this is not the position in the present case. These decisions of the High Court of Delhi have to be read in light and terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mathew Varghese [2015 (1) TMI 461 - SUPREME COURT], which specifically interprets section 13 of the Act and the applicable Rules. The difference in price between the bid of the petitioner and the price paid by the fourth respondent is too startling and staggering. As already noted, the petitioner refused to participate in inter-se bidding. The entire submission of the petitioner is that their bid should be accepted as the transaction was concluded and had become binding, is without merit and has to be rejected. It has been urged before us that the plea with regard to interest was raised before the DRAT, but has not been dealt with in the impugned order dated 10th October, 2014. We do not find any discussion on the said aspect in the impugned order. An order of remit is accordingly passed on the question “whether the petitioner is entitled to interest, and if so, at what rate and for which period.To cut short delay parties are directed to appear before the DRAT on 22nd December, 2014, when a date of hearing will be fixed.- Writ petition dismissed.
|