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 allows applicant to participate in auction, stresses maximizing revenue.</h1> <h3>Mehul Dilipbhai Pandya Versus Sicom Limited</h3> Mehul Dilipbhai Pandya Versus Sicom Limited - TMI Issues Involved:1. Rejection of the applicant's bid by SICOM Limited.2. Issuance of fresh public notice for auction.3. Compliance with the court's previous order regarding the auction process.4. Applicant's right to have the sale confirmed by the court.Detailed Analysis:1. Rejection of the Applicant's Bid by SICOM Limited:The applicant sought to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14.05.2021, wherein SICOM Limited rejected the applicant's bid. The background facts reveal that Kemrock Agritech Pvt. Ltd. was under liquidation, and SICOM Limited, which had a mortgage over certain properties of the company, sought permission from the court to auction these properties. The court had previously granted SICOM Limited permission to auction and sell the properties under certain conditions, including the involvement of the Official Liquidator and seeking court approval for bid acceptance and sale confirmation.2. Issuance of Fresh Public Notice for Auction:The applicant also sought to stay the process of issuing a fresh public notice for auction as intimated in the impugned order. The court noted that the applicant was the only bidder in the previous auction, and SICOM Limited decided to issue a fresh advertisement for auction due to the receipt of only one bid. The court found that SICOM Limited's decision to reject the solitary bid and opt for a fresh auction was guided by the principle of securing the best possible price for the property.3. Compliance with the Court's Previous Order Regarding the Auction Process:The applicant contended that SICOM Limited and the Official Liquidator failed to comply with the court's previous order dated 14th June 2018, which required them to associate the Official Liquidator in fixing the upset price and seek court approval for bid acceptance and sale confirmation. The court acknowledged the importance of this condition but noted that since the bid was not accepted, the stage of seeking court approval did not arise. The court emphasized that the paramount principle is to ensure that the properties fetch maximum price in the larger interest of revenue and public interest.4. Applicant's Right to Have the Sale Confirmed by the Court:The applicant argued that the non-compliance with the court's order prejudiced their rights, as the court could have confirmed the sale in their favor. The court referred to Supreme Court decisions highlighting that the highest bidder does not have a vested right to the property unless the auction sale is confirmed by the authority, ensuring the property fetches an appropriate price without collusion between bidders. The court concluded that SICOM Limited's decision to reject the bid and opt for a fresh auction was within its rights under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act.Conclusion:The court decided not to interfere with the ongoing auction process. It directed that the current auction should be conducted in strict accordance with the previous order dated 14th June 2018, ensuring the Official Liquidator's involvement at all stages. The applicant was allowed to participate in the fresh auction, with provisions for extending the deadline to submit the Earnest Money Deposit draft if necessary. The company application was disposed of with these directions.
TaxTMI 