9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Petition No. 25 of 1985 and also the order dated February 21, 1997, passed in Company Application No. 826 of 1996. The appellant in Company Application No. 542 of 1996 had prayed for refund of Rs. 5 lakhs (being the earnest money deposit) and Rs. 59 lakhs (being 25% of the bid amount/sale consideration) along with accrued interest on the ground that his bid having been cancelled by the High Court, he was entitled to get back those amounts. The High Court directed the official liquidator to refund Rs. 50 lakhs and with respect to the remaining amount rejected that application on October 8, 1996. The Syndicate Bank had filed Company Application No. 743 of 1996 with a prayer to award compensation to it and not to refund the said amounts till ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount and the High Court committed a grave error in not passing an order for refunding the same. He drew our attention to the following observations made by the High Court itself in this behalf (at page 465) : "As long as the transaction is inchoate or incomplete for any reason and the acceptance of the bid is cancelled, the parties are relegated to the original position even though the cancellation of the acceptance of the bid may be on account of the conduct of the bidder himself. By virtue of the cancellation of the acceptance of the bid, the offer made by the bidder is not accepted. It is only on acceptance of the offer made by the bidder, other clauses would stand attracted. This is a case where the sale proceedings were cancelled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication was placed before a Division Bench for passing a final order thereon. Therefore, there was no question of the appellant challenging that order by way of an appeal. The High Court was, therefore, obviously wrong in observing that the appellant "cannot now seek for refund of the entire amount but only to the extent indicated by the learned company judge." We also find that the final order passed by the High Court is not quite consistent with its own observations quoted above. As observed by us earlier the High Court has not stated why the balance amount minus the earnest money deposit should not be refunded to the appellant. The bank's application for awarding compensation was rejected. Probably it was premature in view of the fact t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
