TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant by Annexure-R4 informed the Official Liquidator that he is not intending to proceed with the sale and requested for return of EMD. The appellant filed Company Application No.75/2020 to set aside Annexure- R6 letter of the Official Liquidator whereby the EMD was forfeited. The appellant then turned around and filed C.A. No.76/2020 for direction to allow the appellant to remit the balance sale consideration in two installments within 3 months from the date of order after deducting the amount deposited as EMD. Later, the appellant filed C.A. No.78/2020 for direction for refund of EMD.Still later, C.A. No. 01/2021 was filed for direction to confirm the sale in favour of the appellant as 'directed' by the Court on 09.12.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19 confirmed the sale. Accordingly, the Official Liquidator as per Annexure-R2 communication dated 22.11.2019 (Annexures referred to hereinafter in this judgment are the Annexures produced along with and marked as such in, the Statement filed by the Official Liquidator in C.A. No. 01/2021) informed the appellant that the sale has been confirmed in favour of the appellant and the appellant was called upon to remit the balance sale consideration of ₹ 20,81,920/- along with 18% GST by way of Demand Draft in favour of the Official Liquidator within 30 days from the date of order of confirmation by the Court as per the terms and conditions of the sale. 3. Meanwhile, by Annexure-R3 letter dated 14.11.2019 sent through his counsel, the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection to allow the appellant to remit the balance sale consideration in two installments within 3 months from the date of order after deducting the amount of ₹ 50,000/- deposited as EMD. 8. The learned Company Judge by common order dated 23.09.2020 dismissed both the above applications observing that the said applications were filed only on 22.09.2020 with inordinate and unexplained delay and by the time the Court had already allowed the Official Liquidator to re-tender the sale of copper ingots. 9. After the dismissal of C.A.Nos.75 and 76 of 2020, the appellant filed Company Application No.78/2020 for direction for refund of EMD. During the pendency of the said Company Application, the appellant filed petition to review the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed an order directing the Registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders for posting C.A. No. 1/2021 and R.P. No.860/2020 before the learned Judge before whom it was listed on 09.12.2020. Accordingly, C.A. No. 1 of 2021 and R.P. No.860/2020 were posted and thereupon, on 18.02.2021, the learned Company Judge dismissed C.A. No.1/2021 in C.P. No.2/1996 and the present Company Appeal has been filed against the same. R.P.No.860/2020 was also dismissed by separate order. The Learned Company Judge while dismissing the Company Application No. 1/ 2021 observed; I find from the order sheet that no orders have been passed by this Court permitting petitioner to remit the amount. In the facts and circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e balance sale consideration in two installments within 3 months from the date of order after deducting the amount deposited as EMD. Later, the appellant filed C.A. No.78/2020 for direction for refund of EMD.Still later, C.A. No. 01/2021 was filed for direction to confirm the sale in favour of the appellant as 'directed' by the Court on 09.12.2020. The appellant cannot take inconsistent positions before the Court . 14. The appellant did not avail of the opportunity to remit the balance sale consideration within the time granted and did not seek extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration. On the contrary, the only request of the appellant was for return of the EMD. Since the balance sale consideration was not remi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The learned Company Judge took a very lenient view and refrained from imposing cost. 16. Things did not stop there too. In the memorandum of company appeal, it is reiterated by the appellant that, when the review petition as well C.A No.78/2020 came up for consideration on 08.12.2020, the learned Company Judge orally directed the appellant to remit the sale consideration and it is with the authority of law, the appellant remitted the sale consideration on 16.12.2020. 17. On perusing the order sheet of this Court in C.A.No.78/2020 and R.P. No.860/2020, we find that there was no posting of the above cases on 08.12.2020, whereas, the above cases were posted on 09.12.2020 before the learned Company Judge. In the affidavit filed in suppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
