9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ') to record opinion under section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 with Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Ishar Agro Ltd. be wound up and to take further action in accordance with the provisions of law. 3. Upon the said reference, Official Liquidator (for short the O.L) was appointed and he took possession of assets of respondent No. 1-Company. Official Liqudator submitted O.L.R. No. 21/05, dated 31-3-2005 for grant of permission to invite tenders for sale of land, building, plant and machinery etc. of Respondent No. 1-Company. The Official Liqudator also prayed for formation of Assets Sales Committee of representatives of secured creditors and to obtain report of Government approved valuer. This prayer was accepted by the learned Company Court. 4. Tenders were invited for sale of assets of respondent No. 1-Company and on 11-8-2005, highest offer of Rs. 3.48 crores (Three crore forty eight lakh) was received. The Court was not satisfied with the offer and directed the Sale Committee to proceed for fresh sale by publication in more news-papers. On 25-8-2005, highest offer of Rs. 4.27 crores (Four crore twenty seven lakh) was received. Learned Company Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontended in the I.A. that he had sent a letter to Stress Assets Stabilization Funds Committee (for short 'SASF') and made offer of Rs. 6.01 crores, a copy whereof dated 2-7-2007 was sent to the Official Liqudator, but the Official Liqudator had not called them to participate in negotiation. Before the learned Company Court, appellant prayed for grant of opportunity to participate in the bid and made offer of Rs. 8.05 crores (Eight crore five lakh) as against Rs. 8.01 crores (Eight crore one lakh), already offered by Respondent No. 2. Counsel for the appellant also submitted before the learned Company Court that the appellant is ready to raise more amount, if permitted to bid. 9. The Official Liqudator in his reply to the I.A. denied receiving of such letter sent by either the appellant or the SASFC, therefore, there was no occasion for him to invite the appellant for negotiation. The respondents opposed the prayer of the appellant to allow him to bid and submitted that the appellant did not take any part at any point of time in last three years, when twice tenders were invited from public at larger after wide publication. 10. Learned Company Court, after hearing both the parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat approach of the Company Judge should have been to get highest price so as to satisfy the maximum claims against the company in liquidation and even if bid has been finalized the Company Judge or in appeal the Appellate Court can accept highest offer for purchasing the assets of the company. Learned Company Court expressed its dissatisfaction on the manner in which the auction sale was conducted by the Official Liqudator and directed him to return the earnest money of the tenderers. The Official Liqudator was also directed to consult some expert as to how the property in question should be sold in best possible way. The Official Liqudator despite letter dated 2-7-2007 sent to him by SASF did not call the appellant to participate in negotiations and also did not apprise the learned Company Court about his offer. 12. Learned counsel has also pointed out that in this appeal on 12-8-2008, both counsel for the parties sought time to seek further instructions from their respective clients to increase the purchase amount and learned counsel for the Respondent undertook not to get the documents executed in favour of his client. On this date, the Court was not apprised by the counsel fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was given prior to passing of interim order by this Court dated 12-8-2008 and again on 10-9-2008 directing the respondents not to execute the documents of transfer in favour of respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 has invested Rs. 8.40 crores in addition to the bid amount and commenced production in the plant. On 7-4-2008, learned Company Court had directed the Official Liqudator Respondent No. 1 to call those five parties for negotiation mentioned in OLR No. 11/08, therefore, the Official Liqudator could not call other person/party to participate in the negotiation and if the appellant was interested, he should have filed an application for recalling of the order and granting him permission to take part in negotiation, but he did not do so and impugned final order was passed by the learned Company Court and offer of respondent No. 2 has been accepted. About offer of Rs. 6.01 crores, SASF has not filed any document before the Company Court showing receipt of application of the appellant regarding his interest in the purchase of assets and offer of Rs. 6.01 crores. The appellant was not a party to the bid and also in negotiation, therefore, has no right to file appeal. Learned co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Official Liqudator has denied receipt of this letter. If really the letter was sent, the appellant could have kept proof for sending the letter. The appellant has filed another letter dated 9-5-2008 sent to the Official Liqudator in which he has expressed his desire to purchase the assets of the company for Rs. 8.05 crores. It is pertinent to mention here that the intervention application was also flied on 9-6-2008 before the learned Company Court, therefore, it creates doubt on the bona fide of the appellant. No proof has been filed by the appellant to show as to when the application was sent to the Official Liqudator. It does not contain any acknowledgement. In intervention application, he made offer of Rs. 8.05 crores (Eight crore five lakh), only Rs. 4,00,000 (Four lakhs rupees) more than the offer of Respondent No. 2 as accepted by the learned Company Court. 17. In the intervention application as well as before this Court, no allegations have been levelled by the appellant in regard to fraud or collusion against the respondents, therefore, merely by increase of Rs. 4,00,000 (four lakhs rupees), final bid of Respondent No. 2 cannot be refused and we find substance in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
