TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Denies Request to Sell Assets of Wood Polymers, Rejects Review Application, Orders Costs to Applicant.</h1> <h3>Suraj Enterprises Versus O.L. of Wood Polymers Ltd.</h3> Suraj Enterprises Versus O.L. of Wood Polymers Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Direction to sell composite assets of Wood Polymers (In Liquidation) to the applicant.2. Alternative direction for bidding for composite assets.3. Restraining respondent No. 1 from parting with auctioned movable assets.4. Review or recall of the order dated 14-10-2004 confirming the sale of movable assets.Detailed Analysis:1. Direction to Sell Composite Assets of Wood Polymers (In Liquidation) to the Applicant:The applicant sought a direction for the sale of composite assets of Wood Polymers (In Liquidation) at Rs. 315 lacs. The Court noted that the previous sale of movable assets was confirmed at Rs. 178 lacs. The applicant argued that the Court should consider the larger interest of creditors and test the new offer against past bids to secure the highest amount for composite assets. The Court emphasized the need for the most remunerative price and considered whether the new offer was reasonable.2. Alternative Direction for Bidding for Composite Assets:The applicant alternatively requested a direction for bidding for composite assets. The Court considered the applicant's suggestion to invite bidders by advertisement to obtain the best possible price. The applicant cited Supreme Court decisions to support the need for securing higher bids. However, the Court highlighted the necessity to recall and set aside the previous order before granting such a direction.3. Restraining Respondent No. 1 from Parting with Auctioned Movable Assets:The applicant sought to restrain respondent No. 1 from parting with auctioned movable assets. The Court noted that the sale was confirmed on 14-10-2004, and the applicant did not seek to set aside this order. The Court examined the bona fides of the applicant, who was aware of the sale and yet sought inspection of assets after the sale was confirmed. The Court found inconsistencies in the applicant's statements regarding business activities and the timing of the communication seeking inspection.4. Review or Recall of the Order Dated 14-10-2004 Confirming the Sale of Movable Assets:The Court analyzed the principles for reviewing or recalling an order under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The applicant failed to show discovery of new evidence, mistake, or error apparent on the record, or any other sufficient reason. The Court emphasized that review proceedings are not an appeal and must be confined to the scope of Order 47 Rule 1. The applicant's claim of a better offer was not sufficient for review. The Court found no material irregularity, fraud, or substantial injury to the applicant. The Court also considered the depreciation of idle assets and the need for secured creditors to realize funds from non-performing assets.Conclusion:The Court rejected the application, noting that the applicant failed to establish grounds for review or recall of the order. The Court emphasized the importance of securing the best price for creditors and the depreciating nature of the assets. The applicant was ordered to pay costs to respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
