Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Tech Invest India (Pvt.) Ltd. Thr. Major Shareholder Rajiv Gosain Versus M/s. Assam Power & Electricals Ltd. And Others

Sale of Assets – Repayment of loan – Validity of Auction proceeding - High Court dismissed appeal and review application of appellant company, filed against order confirming sale and handing over assets of appellant-company to respondent in lieu of repayment of loan amount – Held that:- Prima facie, it appeared that objections of appellant were not properly considered as objections were not heard on merit and auction sale was confirmed – Conduct of Official Liquidator in selling property at pric .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, impugned judgment passed by High Court hereby set aside – Official Liquidator directed to recover possession of properties and proceed with fresh auction in accordance with procedure established by law – Decided in favour of Appellant. - Civil Appeal Nos. 6055-6056 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 27113-27114 of 2013) - Dated:- 11-8-2015 - M. Y. Eqbal And Arun Mishra,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mrs. Priya Puri,Adv. Mr. Ranjay Kr. Dubey, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. M. T. George,Adv. Mr. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

spondent. 3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The respondent no. 1 had sent a statutory notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 and filed a winding up petition against the appellant-company alleging that the appellant-company had taken a loan of ₹ 6 lakhs from respondent no. 1 on 23rd March, 1999 and promised to repay it within 30 days with 18% interest. The appellant-company was alleged to have, however, initiated measures to shut down its operations and sell its .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

003. The public auction was to be held on 29.09.2003. 5. The appellant-company filed an application to stay the auction on the ground that its assets worth ₹ 7 crores were going to be auctioned without fixing the minimum reserve price and after issuing the auction sale notice only once. The appellant accordingly expressed apprehension about the highest price being secured. The Company Judge disposed of the application vide order dated 26.09.2003 refusing to interfere with the auction and d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt as directed, the sale in favour of respondent no. 3 was confirmed and possession of the assets of the company was directed to be given vide order dated 30.06.2004. 7. Rajiv Gosain, a shareholder in the appellant-company, filed an application for rejecting the auction sale and for re-auction. It was alleged that respondent no. 1 and the Official Liquidator had appointed S. K. Ahuja & Associates who had inspected the assets of the appellant-company and valued the assets to be worth ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and with mala fide intention appointed an ineligible valuer, Mr. S. B. Bhargava, to value the assets of the appellant-company. Mr. S. B. Bhargava was alleged to have drastically and illegally reduced the value of the assets of the appellant-company to ₹ 76.80 lakhs and his report was submitted to the High Court by the Official Liquidator. The same was alleged to have led to the issuance of an erroneous auction notice which did not mention minimum reserve price and many other vital details .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e counsel representing the shareholders of the appellant-company had no objections, directed respondent no. 3 to deposit the remaining amount. On 30.06.2004, the High Court confirmed the sale in favour of respondent no. 3 and the assets of the appellant-company were directed to be given to respondent no. 3. 10. The appellant-company filed an appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court contending that its assets were worth much more than the price at which it was sold and that its objections w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dated 16.07.2012 which had made recorded the same. The High Court, however, held that such a statement in the judgment dated 16.07.2012 was a mere repetition of what was stated in the order dated 28.05.2004 of the Company Judge and hence an error, if any, was in the order dated 28.05.2004 which was appealed against by the appellant-company. The High Court held that the appeal filed by the appellant-company was dismissed mainly because the sale was confirmed in favour of respondent no. 3, possess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Update Alerts     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version