Liquidation sale confirmation cannot be reopened merely because an outbid bidder later offers a higher price.

Under rules 272 and 273 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, the company court controls the sale and confirmation of assets in liquidation, and its discretion will be disturbed only if exercised on wrong principles or without regard to relevant facts. Where the sale was widely publicised, the reserve price was fixed and enhanced, bidding was permitted in court, and the final price was found adequate, a later higher offer by an outbid bidder did not justify reopening or deconfirming the sale. In the stated facts, there was no fraud or irregularity, the appellant had a full opportunity to bid, and the confirmed sale in favour of the first respondent was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confirmed sale of the company's assets could be reopened merely because the appellant later offered a higher price, and whether the company court had properly exercised its discretion in confirming the sale in favour of the first respondent.

Analysis: Under rules 272 and 273 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, the company court controls the sale of property in liquidation, including the mode of sale, the conditions attached to it, and confirmation of the sale. The governing principle is that the court must be satisfied that the price obtained is adequate having regard to the market value of the property and that the discretion to confirm a sale is to be interfered with only if exercised unreasonably, capriciously, on wrong principles, or without regard to relevant facts. In the present case, wide publicity had been given, reserve price had been fixed and enhanced, the sale terms allowed bidding in court, and the final price fetched was substantially above the reserve price. There was no allegation or proof of fraud or irregularity, and the appellant had been given full opportunity to bid but stopped at Rs. 1.80 crores when the first respondent had offered Rs. 1.85 crores. The later offer of Rs. 2.10 crores was made only after the sale had already been confirmed and possession delivered, and such a subsequent higher offer by an outbid bidder could not, by itself, justify deconfirmation of an otherwise validly confirmed sale.

Conclusion: The confirmation of sale in favour of the first respondent was valid and the request to reopen the sale was rightly refused.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was held to be without merit, and the confirmed court sale was allowed to stand on the basis that mere later improvement of the bid could not unsettle a properly conducted and adequately priced sale in liquidation.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a company court, acting within its discretion, is satisfied that a liquidation sale has been properly publicised and has fetched an adequate price, a later higher offer by an outbid bidder is not by itself a ground to reopen or deconfirm the confirmed sale.

---