TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (11) TMI 419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficial Liquidator not to hand over the possession of the aforesaid property to respondent No. 2 and not to execute the sale deed/conveyance deed in favour of respondent No. 2. 2. This Court has issued notice on 30-10-2007. At the time of issuance of notice, this Court has observed that only with a view to show its bona fide, the applicant has tendered the demand drafts and cheque of Rs. 1.41 crores and an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs has already been paid as EMD lying in the office of the Official Liquidator. All these cheques and demand drafts were handed over to learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator who waived service of notice and notice was issued on the rest of the respondents. The Court has also granted ad interim relief restraining the Official Liquidator from handing over the possession to the successful bidder and if the remaining amount has not been paid by him by that time, the same should not be accepted. 3. Heard Mr. Pranav G. Desai, learned advocate appearing for the applicant, Mr. Mrugesh Jani, learned advocate appearing for the Official Liquidator, Mr. A.S. Asthawadi, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 and Mr. R.D. Dave, learned advocate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r respondent No. 2, on the other hand, has strongly opposed this application. He has raised several legal contentions opposing this application and also relied on various judgments of the High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He has submitted that the applicant had earlier preferred Company Application No. 450 of 2007 which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 11-10-2007. The said application was absolutely for similar relief which is prayed for in the present application. The said order of rejection has not been challenged by the applicant. Therefore, the same has become final. He has, therefore, submitted that the present application moved by the applicant is barred by principles of estoppel as no further application can be filed for the same relief which was rejected by this Court earlier. He has further submitted that there is an order of confirmation of sale in favour of respondent No. 2. The auction was held before this Court and the present applicant was also a party and had participated in the auction. Being the highest bidder, this Court vide order dated 30-8-2007, confirmed the sale in favour of respondent No. 2. Initially, respondent No. 2 had paid EMD.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia [1997] 11 SCC 271; Wellworth Vanijya (P.) Ltd. v. Chowdhury Udyog (P.) Ltd. [2003] 42 SCL 686 (SC); Divya Mfg. Co. (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) and Sharawan Kumar Agarwal v. Shrinenp Investment Ltd. [1990] 68 Comp. Cas. 52 (Cal.). 8. Considering the above submissions and the judgments referred to and relied upon by him, Mr. Asthawadi has strongly urged that the application moved by the present applicant deserves to be rejected. 9. Mr. R.D. Dave, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 3 secured creditor has submitted that since the higher offer is made by the present applicant, the same should be accepted as it will benefit the secured creditors as well as the workers. 10. Mr. Mrugesh Jani, learned advocate appearing for the Official Liquidator has also supported the case of the applicant. 11. The Court has also asked Mr. A.S. Asthawadi, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 to raise his offer. However, he declined to raise his offer. 12. After having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and after having considered the earlier orders passed by this Court in respect of confirmation of sale as well as various authorities ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cited by the learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 are confining to the facts of those cases. Even in the case of Divya Manufacturing Co. (P.) Ltd. (supra), a distinction was sought to be drawn by submitting that there was condition laid down in the tender document empowering the Court to set aside the sale. Irrespective of the fact whether any such condition is there or not, the Court is well within its power to reconsider its decision especially when higher amount is offered and ultimately, it is in the advantage and benefit of the secured creditors and workers. 14. Even the Division Bench of this Court has taken the view in O.J. Appeal No. 80 of 2007, decided on 28-6-2007, where the learned Single Judge has rejected the application for de-confirmation of sale and while considering the higher offer made by that appellant, since the original successful bidder had increased its offer to match with the offer made by the appellant in the appeal, the matter was, accordingly, decided. 15. Considering the over all view of the matter and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court is of the view that since the present applicant is offering Rs. 1.....