9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : The High Court by the impugned order while allowing the appeal filed by the appellant herein remanded the matter back to the Company Judge by setting aside the sale confirmed in favour of the first respondent for sale of the assets of the company in liquidation by initiating proceedings afresh. In this appeal, the appellant contents that its offer of Rs. 4.25 crores which was the highest and above the valuation price fixed for sale of the company's property ought to have been accepted instead of remanding the matter to the Company Judge. In the connected appeal the first respondent has challenged the order of the High Court on the ground that its offer was the best offer, when accepted, hence, there was no reason why the Appellate Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter had come up for further orders on earlier dates starting from 11-11-2002, noticing the fact that the value of the property was diminishing, we called upon the parties to offer their bids in this Court so that the matter could be settled once for all without further delay so as to safeguard the interests of the creditors to the extent possible. Though this matter was adjourned from time to time, expecting the respondent to make a better bid than what was made by the appellant, we are informed today that the said respondent is not willing to make any higher bid. On the contrary, he wanted to question the judgment of the High Court which has cancelled the confirmation of sale made in his favour. As noted above, the company was wound up as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was accepted by the Company Court and confirmed but this Court by an order dated 7-2-1991 set aside the said bid and directed the Company Court to call for fresh bids. The applicant contends that along with his offer, it had deposited Rs. 87.50 lacs towards the sale consideration which amount even according to the judgment of this Court dated 7-2-1991 is liable to be returned to it but inspite of repeated applications made to the Company Court, the said amount is still retained by the Official Liquidator who has no jurisdiction to do so because the amount in question was deposited as part of the sale consideration which sale was set aside by this Court and this Court while doing so, had observed that it was open to the applicant to apply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
