TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (11) TMI 1144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from C.A. No. 4 of 2009. This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge [Oswal Agro Furane Ltd. (In Liquidation), In re [2009] 151 Comp. Cas. 528 (Punj. & Har.)] confirming the sale made in favour of respondent No. 1 even while dismissing the application for setting aside the sale moved at the instance of the appellant as well as the workers' union. 2. Originally, the property was sold by the liquidator appointed by this court in favour of respondent No. 1 for an amount of Rs. 13.80 crores and the said sale was confirmed on 22-9-2003. On 25-9-2003, the appellant filed an application for setting aside the sale offering Rs. 10 lakhs more than the highest b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....parties are agreed that the instant appeal be disposed of in terms of the order dated August 5, 2008, passed by this court in C.M.A. No. 106 of 2008 and C.A. No. 3 of 2007. Learned counsel for the parties are also one in requiring this court to clarify that all interim orders passed in the present appeal, i.e., C.A. No. 21 of 2003 should be allowed to continue till the readjudication of the matter, and additionally, that status quo as it exists today should continue till the final disposal of the matter at the hands of the company judge. While accepting the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the parties and setting aside the order dated December 8, 2003, we hereby clarify that the instant order has not been passed on the merits,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for consideration on a number of dates after notice to respondent No. 1, viz., 9-10-2003, 17-10-2003, 22-10-2003, 28-10-2003 and 3-11-2003, on which date it had been categorically stated that respondent No. 1 was not willing to pay Rs. 14.80 crores. In view of these findings, learned senior counsel has argued that the sale made in favour of the appellant at Rs. 14.80 crores could not have been set aside. 6. As regards the argument that the confirmed sale could not have been reviewed, we are in agreement with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that if this were to be accepted than the confirmed sale in favour of respondent No. 1 also could not have been re-opened at the behest of the appellant. Having chosen the said route, the appe....