TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 1010
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. The said issued is pending in O.S.No.790/2008. 3. He claims that he was out of station for 25 days and during his absence, the property of the first respondent-Company was auctioned for Rs. 3,90,00,000 which is far below the market value. Subsequently, he found that the second applicant is ready to purchase the assets of the first respondent-Company for Rs. 4,10,00,000. Hence, he filed this application seeking for reopening the case and to permit the second applicant to participate in the proceedings before confirmation. 4. The few facts of the case are as follows: One Mohan Singh, Proprietor of M/s. Mohan Engineering filed a winding up petition against the first respondent company for non-payment of the dues of Rs. 2,47,671 under Section 431(a) of the Companies Act. On 27-8-2008, the first respondent-company submitted before the Court that it has closed its business and settled its dues with its employees and they are unable to pay the debts due to the petitioner in the winding up petition. This Court admitted the petition and ordered for advertisement of the petition in 'The Hindu' daily newspaper. Thereafter, winding up order has been passed 18th December 2008. The Officia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....011 three bidders have appeared before the Court and participated in the Court auction. As per minutes recorded of even date (which is part and parcel of this order) in the said Court auction conducted as noted herein above Sri. K.N. Shivaswamy has given the highest bid for Rs. 3.90 Crores. 16. Thus taking into consideration that assets of the Company in (liquidation) has been valued as per its valuation made in June 2009 and September 2010, this Court is of the considered view that any further delay would result in further deterioration in the value of the assets in question as is evident from the records. The bid offered by Sri. K.N. Shivaswmay is in the proximity with the valuation of the assets of the Company made by the valuer Sri. S.V. Srinivas (valuation submitted on behalf of the secured creditor which is at Rs. 3.90 Crores). Secured Creditor has not furnished or secured any other offer from any prospective purchasers by a higher offer than one offered by Sri. K.N. Shivaswamy. There is no justifiable reason to either postpone the Court auction or reject the offer made by Sri. Shivaswamy. There are no other person/s present who intend to give higher bid than one received to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... conversant with all worldly affairs and is also aware about the proceedings that was conducted in the open Court on 4.03.2011 and having consciously participated, offered its bid, accepted the same and having not increased the bid even before the bid came to be accepted and having agreed not to increase the bid has now come up with the present application on a ground which does not merit consideration. The said plea put forward by the applicant is hereby rejected and the attempt made by the applicant to stall the auction proceedings conducted by this Court on 4-3-2011 by making a show of increasing the bid by offering five lakhs above the bid offered by Sri. K.N. Shivaswamy would clearly go to show the sinister motive with which the present application is filed. As such application not only deserves to be dismissed, but applicant is to be mulcted with exemplary costs. Accordingly application is dismissed with costs of Rs. 20.000/- payable by the applicant to the O.L within a period of four weeks failing which the O.L is at liberty to recover the same by filing the execution proceedings." 6. The said application was dismissed with cost of Rs. 20,000/-. Thereafter, the Ex-Director ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ported judgment made in C.A.No.889/2002 disposed of on 17-11-2003, contended that the Court has power to reopen the case if there is a highest bidder who is ready to pay more money. He also relied upon the judgments in Rao Mahmood Ahmed Khan v. Ranbir Singh AIR 1995 SC 2195 and Lica (P.) Ltd. v. Official Liquidator [1996] 85 Comp. Cas. 788 (SC) and contended that 25% of the bid amount has to be deposited immediately and sought for allowing the application. 10. I have carefully gone through the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the earlier order dated 4-3-2011 passed by this Court in Co.P.No.56/2008. 11. It is not in dispute that for non payment of dues of Rs. 2,47.671/-, the first respondent-company was wound up by this Court on 18-12-2008. However, this Court permitted to auction the property of the first respondent-company in liquidation and permitted to give notification in the newspapers circulated at Karnataka as well as at Bombay to fetch a higher price. The efforts made to auction the property were ended with failure. Thereafter, the Court itself has taken the responsibility of auctioning the property of the first respondent and auction....