TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (6) TMI 334
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade an application inter alia asking for leave to sale the assets of the company in liquidation as well as restraining Official Liquidator from taking possession of the assets of the company in liquidation. 5. By an order dated October 4, 1999 Mr. Ronojit Kumar Mitra, J. (as His Lordship then was) granted liberty to WBFC to sell the plant and machinery and other assets charged in their favour with a corresponding direction to the extent that in every step of sale Official Liquidator must be notified. The sale was made subject to confirmation of this Court. 6. By an order dated March 3, 2000 the order of winding up was recalled on the basis of a term of settlement arrived at by and between the management of the company in liquidation and the petitioning creditor. There was settlement with WBFC. The assets were repossessed by the company in liquidation on March 22, 2000. 7. The order of winding up was again revived on June 12, 2001 in view of default committed by the company. The WBFC again took possession of the assets and properties on August 16, 2001. There had been further attempt to revive the said company. There had been further payment to WBFC in terms of the settlement arr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereby the sale was confirmed in favour of ANMOL as well as for setting aside the sale in favour of ANMOL. (5)C.A. No. 86 of 2004: This application was made by M/s. Doshi Agents Pvt. Ltd. claiming to be a secured creditor for setting aside the sale in favour of ANMOL. 12. As discussed above the first three applications were virtually disposed of as would appear from the chronological events recorded hereinbefore. Hence, those three applications being C.A. No. 455 of 2001, C.A. No. 512 of 2001 and C.A. No. 366 of 2001 are disposed of without passing any further order on the same. 13. This leaves us with the two applications made by Mr. Pradip Kumar Dasgupta as well as M/s. Doshi Agents Pvt. Ltd. inter alia praying for setting aside of the sale confirmed in favour of ANMOL. 14. Mr. P.K. Roy, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing in support of the first application being C.A. No. 532 of 2003 contended as follows : (i)The sale conducted by WBFC was contrary to the direction of this Court as contained in order dated October 4, 1999 inasmuch as Official Liquidator was not informed at any stage. (ii)The property was sold at a price much below the valuation done by WBFC. (iii)WBFC at one....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the sale had reached a finality and at this stage the same should not be set aside. Mr. Bachawat in support of his contention cited the decision of the Apex Court in Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Jagdamba Oil Mills [2002] 3 SCC 496. 19. It is well-settled principle of law that once the sale is conducted under the supervision of the Court and the same is confirmed by the Court the same should not be set aside except on cogent reasons otherwise there would be no sanctity to the Court orders. From the chronology of events it would appear that from time to time the company in liquidation was given opportunity by this Court to pay all the creditors including WBFC. The company could not adhere to their commitments made before this Court. It is true that at one point of time WBFC accepted Rs. 41 lakhs in full and final settlement although their claim was much more than the said sum. Such acceptance was conditional upon payment of the said sum in stipulated manner. The company could not pay within the stipulated period. Hence, it would not be appropriate for me to compel WBFC to accept a sum of Rs. 33 lakhs in full and final settlement of their claim at a much belated stage. WBFC being a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pay of those claims. The Apex Court lastly observed that it would be the obligation of the Court to ensure that best possible price had been procured whereby the creditors could recover their dues at least some part of it. In the instant case, I adjourned the hearing of the matter to enable the parties to find out any suitable higher offer. The petitioning creditor contended that he was prepared to purchase the property for a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs provided he was given an adjustment of a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs being his claim in the winding up proceeding. The petitioning creditor was an unsecured creditor. Even if I accept his offer it would amount to a net amount of Rs. 33 lakhs to be paid to WBFC being the secured creditor whereas the sale price fetched was Rs. 37.5 lakhs. It is further noted that the purchaser in deference to the desire of this Court already matched the valuation by making payment of further sum of Rs. 7.5 lakhs. The petitioning creditor did not come forward to outbid the purchaser. The applicants also could not bring any suitable offer so that I could consider the issue of setting aside the case by directing further sale to be held. (iii) Union Bank of India's case....