Court allows purchase of property in liquidation despite lack of other interested parties, citing unique circumstances.

The Court granted permission to intending purchasers to buy Lot No.4 of a property in liquidation after no other interested party emerged despite multiple sale notices. The Court differentiated the present case from precedents like Action Ispat and Navinchandra Steels, noting the absence of pending transfer applications to the National Company Law Tribunal or revival proceedings by a third party. The Court acknowledged the unique circumstances, including expenses incurred by the Official Liquidator, and allowed the applicants to proceed with the purchase, now re-advertised as Lot No.1.

---

---

Issues:
Intending purchasers seeking permission to buy Lot No.4 of a property in liquidation, jurisdiction of the Court over such matters post recent Supreme Court judgments, differentiation of present case from precedents like Action Ispat and Navinchandra Steels.

Analysis:
The applicants, intending purchasers of Lot No.4 of a property in liquidation, sought permission to buy the said property after no other interested party emerged despite multiple sale notices and orders. They had already deposited 20% of the total consideration money with the Official Liquidator. The Court acknowledged the lack of any other buyer and the absence of new offers, leading to the primary question of whether the Court retained jurisdiction in such matters post-recent Supreme Court judgments.

In the recent case of Action Ispat, the Supreme Court clarified the Court's discretion in transferring winding-up proceedings to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) post-admission stage or after the appointment of a Company Liquidator. The decision emphasized the need for a case-by-case analysis based on the stage of proceedings. Similarly, Navinchandra Steels highlighted the importance of reviving corporate debtors in the public interest.

However, the present case differed as there was no pending transfer application to the NCLT or any revival proceedings initiated by a third party. This distinction, along with the absence of pending NCLT proceedings, indicated a clear deviation from the scenarios addressed in the aforementioned judgments. The Court also noted the expenses incurred by the Official Liquidator for advertisements and property valuation, which could not be reversed if the matter was not proceeded with.

Considering the unique circumstances of the case, the Court found no impediment in granting the applicants' request to purchase Lot No.4, now re-advertised as Lot No.1. The Official Liquidator was directed to assist the applicants in the sale process, leading to the disposal of the application in favor of the applicants.

---