TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (8) TMI 260
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,000. But the said sale confirmation was reopened by the learned company judge on the ground that the earlier order was passed as a result of misstatement of facts and by misleading the court. In fact, after sale in favour of the appellant was reopened, a fresh sale was held in which the same property fetched Rs. 55 lakhs in 1995. The point raised in this appeal is whether the learned company judge could have reopened the matter on the ground that the court was misled on account of misstatement of facts. The appellant contends that the court has no such power. The following are the facts. Binatone Electronics Limited was ordered to be wound up by the company court on the recommendations of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iquidator also resorted to inter se bidding between the said three officers and as a result of such inter se bidding the highest offer received was for Rs. 11,10,00,0. On that basis, the sale in favour of the appellant was directed to be confirmed. It also appears that the appellant paid the requisite amount as directed in the order. C. A. No. 874 of 1993 in which the said order was passed and was disposed of in that manner. Thereafter, the assistant official liquidator went out of the picture and the official liquidator came in and certain third parties also filed applications stating that the court sale of May 25, 1993, in favour of the appellant was very much undervalued on account of misrepresentation. The learned company judge held th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion report of the income-tax authorities is forthcoming on record. Mr. Nayyar further states that even the original record was not made available to him by the liquidator. It is very unfortunate that Mr. Nayyar did not verify the facts from the records of the official liquidator before making a statement before the court recommending acceptance of the bid thereby defeating the very purpose of his appointment." The learned judge then also observed that a number of parties had since come forward with substantially high offers, the highest being Rs. 26.5 lakhs. Later even an offer of Rs. 33 lakhs was received. But apart from these offers, the learned company judge thought that inasmuch as the court was misled into believing that there was a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the proposition that the court could interfere if there was misrepresentation regarding valuation or location of the property involved. Counsel for the official liquidator conceded before the learned company judge that the above legal position was correct. Counsel sought for a revocation of the earlier order of confirmation of sale and also relied upon rule 273 of the Companies (Court) Rules and Order 21, rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Reference was also made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lica (Put.) Ltd. (No. 1) v. Official Liquidator [1996] 85 Comp Cas 788, where a similar question was dealt with by it. In that case, the company judge in the Calcutta High Court had accepted the highest bid of Rs. 37 lakhs, but p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d company judge came to the conclusion that he had the necessary power to recall the earlier order as the same was not warranted in the interests of justice and equity. Accordingly, the order dated May 25, 1993, was recalled. In fact, after a fresh sale was conducted in this matter the same property fetched Rs. 55 lakhs. We are of the view that in the light of the rulings cited by the learned company judge, the court had the inherent power to recall its earlier order when such order was passed on misrepresentation. When the matter came up before us we sent for the concerned assistant official liquidator, Mr. Shukla, who has -since been transferred to Bangalore. He came before us on July 17, 1995, and stated that there is a file in the offi....