TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (12) TMI 242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06 in the daily newspapers inviting offers for Sonepur Spinning Mills and Baripada Spinning Mills of respondent No. 2. Pursuant to the advertisement, M/s. Ruhatia Spinners Private Limited, the appellant herein, having its registered office at Karana Bazar, Akola in the State of Maharashtra submitted its bid before the Asset Disposal Committee and on scrutinizing the same it having been found to be eligible was permitted to participate in the bid. The appellant offered Rs. 1.41 crores for Sonepur apinning Mills and Rs. 1.20 crores for Baripada Spinning Mills along with others. The offers were placed before the learned Company Judge. It filed Misc. Case No. 52 of 2006 on 7-7-2006 enhancing its bid to Rs. 1.75 crores for the Sonepur Spinning Mills with the conditions that they are interested in taking over and running the Mill. The appellant again filed another application (Misc. Case No. 62 of 2006) indicating therein that they are prepared to leave 60 acres of land to the IDC from out of the area available at Sonepur Spinning Mill. Rajashree Vanijya Private Limited, respondent No. 1, who had not approached the Assets Disposal Committee of the IDC approached the learned Company Judge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uestion. It is urged that the appellant having preferred the appeal in compliance with the order dated 4-9-2006 passed by the Apex Court, without giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant, the order dated 8-9-2006 could not have been passed. The impugned order is further assailed on the ground that respondent No. 3 having invited offers and respondent No. 1 having not given its offer participated by producing relevant documents to prove its eligibility, it could not have been allowed to give its offer before the learned Company Judge. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and other respondents have taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that there being no record to show that Mr. Niranjan is their authorised representative having been duly authorised b y M/s. Ruhatia Spinners Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, he was not entitled to maintain the appeal on behalf of the company. It is also submitted that the appeal had been filed on 11-9-2006 whereas the purported affidavit showing authorization is dated 26-10-2006 inasmuch as the name reflected in the affidavit does not tally with the name in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it to challenge the order. 6. In course of hearing of the appeal, we had called upon the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 15.65 crores to match the offer made by respondent No. 1 and to conduct a bid to find out whether the appellant is still interested to go for a higher bid. The appellant, however, had deposited the bank draft for the aforesaid amount but however learned Senior Advocate submitted in the Court that the appellant is not prepared to participate in the bid since it is challenging the process of bidding before the learned Company Court. 7. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the questions for consideration are whether the appeal filed by M/s. Ruhatia Spinners Private Limited represented through Mr. Niranjan is maintainable; whether in view of the order of the Apex Court dated 25-8-2006 refusing to interfere with the orders dated 4-8-2006 and 18-8-2006 passed by the learned Company Judge and having granted leave to the appellant to prefer an appeal against those orders and no appeal having been filed, the appellant could maintain the present appeal against the impugned order, whether the appellant having taken part in the open bid made in Court on 8-9-2006....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der of the Apex Court has to be rejected. The Apex Court by order dated 4-9-2006 in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 14313 of 2006 had passed the following order : "The impugned order is appealable before the Division Bench. We fail to see why the petitioner has not moved before Division Bench against the order of the Company Judge. Mr. V.A. Mohta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, states that within one week from today, the petitioner will move the Division Bench against the impugned order of the Company Judge. Permission granted. Status quo as regards possession to be maintained for one week from today. The special leave petition is disposed of." Thus the interim order of stay for one week from the date of passing of the order dated 4-9-2006 was passed by the Apex Court. This order, however, at no point of time was brought to the notice of the learned Company Judge nor any appeal was ever filed as against the orders impugned before the Apex Court within the time granted by the Apex Court. The orders passed by the Apex Court in the SLP at the instance of the appellant having not been brought to the notice of the learned Company Judge, there is no illegality or infirmity in ....