Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Added further the learned senior counsel that ITCOT Consultancy and Services Limited was entrusted with the work of valuation and preparation of the report; that the said agency has been paid amount towards their services; that based on their report, the Official Liquidator has brought the properties for sale and fixed the upset price and thus, the order of the learned single Judge that in so far as holding that the Official Liquidator could not investigate into the title of the property was factually incorrect and the dismissal of the applications is liable to be set aside on this ground; that in the valuation report prepared by ITCOT Consultancy and Services Limited, they have categorically stated that the valuation of the said property was arrived without any land documents and the ownership of the land was determined from the previous owners, which was suppressed by the Official Liquidator in the tender terms and conditions and hence, the sale was vitiated; that the statement made by the Official Liquidator in the terms to tender were misleading and based on the same, the appellant had offered to purchase the property; that when admittedly the representations made by the Official Liquidator during negotiations which had led to the contract were not true, the sale was void; that the Official Liquidator was duty bound to disclose the interest of the company in liquidation to the properties brought for auction; that the Statute imposes and casts an obligation on the part of the Official Liquidator to verify the title of the company in liquidation to the property brought for sale; that in the absence of the same, any sale made in furtherance of any such representation, that is found to be untrue, is void entitling the offerer or purchaser to rescind the sale at any point of time; that subsequent to tendering of the entire sale amount and after handing over symbolic possession, the boundaries were sought to be fixed by the purchaser i.e.the appellant pursuant to the orders passed by the Court and that during the same, several mis-discrepancies, as set out in the memo and extracted in the order, were found rendering the sale void and those discrepancies were well within the knowledge of the Official Liquidator, who did not bring it to the notice earlier; that even prior to the completion of the sale and remittance of the amount, the appellant had sought for fixing of boundary stones as there was no demarcation of the property, which was opposed by the Official Liquidator on the ground that the relief sought for at that point of time was luxurious; that having opposed the memo filed for fixing boundary stones and furnishing title deeds, it was not open to the Official Liquidator to oppose the applications; that the duty is cast upon the Official Liquidator to disclose the every aspect, more particularly when the said disclosure, if not done, would affect the judgment of the bidders; that any sale by the court is one on good faith, trust and confidence and classified as Contract of Uberrimae fidel and therefore, when the auction purchaser reposes confidence and faith on the representations made in the court sale and the same being ipso facto, accepted as true and no opportunity, whatsoever, provided to the purchaser to scrutinize the title and when the representations found to be false, the sale was liable to be set aside.

"3. In compliance of the above said order, the Official Liquidator took possession of Companys movable and immovable properties situated at various places. Subsequently as directed by the Hon'ble Court, the Official Liquidator has valued the said properties through ITCOT".

20. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the Official Liquidator requested ITCOT, Chennai, to value the properties in question, namely, 41.12 acres of land of the company in liquidation situated in Kilai and Ulundai villages. In paragraph 7 of the report of the Official Liquidator dated 20.06.2007, it was stated as follows:

"7. It is submitted that the sale of another property a vacant land to an extent of 41.12 acres belonging to the company in liquidation, situated at in various survey numbers in Killai and Ulundai Village, Sriperumpudur, Thiruvallur District was confirmed for an amount of Rs.14.00,000,000/- in favour of Shri S.Yusuf Siddique, the highest bidder, who subsequently failed to remit the balance sale consideration and this Honble Court by an order dated 26.04.2007 in C.A.No.392/2007 forfeited the EMD of Rs.2,00,000/- received from Shri S.Yusuf Siddique and directed the Official Liquidator to obtain fresh valuation report from ITCOT for auctioning the said property. Accordingly, the Official Liquidator has got the property valued afresh through ITCOT on 28.05.2007 and received the valuation report in a sealed envelope, which is in the custody of the Official Liquidator and will be submitted before this Honble Court, at the time of hearing of this application".

43. Much was commented by the respondents that there was sufficient time in the hands of the appellant/purchaser, during which, he should have investigated the title and all relevant particulars about the property, which he offered to purchase. It is pertinent to point out that subsequent to the acceptance of the bid and payment of initial earnest money deposit, the appellant has filed a memo seeking for verification of the title deeds, but it was the Official Liquidator, who opposed the same that the purchaser could be permitted only after the remittance of the entire sale consideration. Contrarily, after payment of the entire sale consideration by the appellant, the Official Liquidator has taken a different stand that only 26 documents were available in respect of the property and the sale was made only 'as is where is and whatever there is basis' and hence, the purchaser could not make any complaint thereof. The contention put forth by the respondents that in view of the voluminous work, the Official Liquidator could not investigate into the title of the properties, cannot be accepted even for a moment for the simple reason, in the instant case, he has engaged the services of ITCOT Consultancy and Services Limited, with whom the valuation of the property was entrusted and the agency has also been paid for that purpose. While there is a statutory obligation on the part of the Official Liquidator to verify the title of the properties of the company in liquidation, which is brought for sale, the Official Liquidator has miserably failed in his duty. He has neither verified the title of the properties, which are brought for sale, nor possession of the property even after the valuation report was filed by ITCOT. From the above, it is quite clear that the Official Liquidator has not even verified the report of the ITCOT, but placed before the Court along with his report and has obtained an order for sale of the property. The report filed by the Official Liquidator, as shown above, would stand a good piece of evidence as to the mis-description of survey number and ownership of the property. Had the Official Liquidator made a disclosure of all the material aspects after the payment of the earnest money deposit, the Court would not have ordered the sale and if there was disclosure, the appellant could not have ventured into make an offer. Even after the payment of earnest money deposit, he has filed a memo seeking reliefs and there were directions issued by the Court to the Official Liquidator to do, but the Official Liquidator, instead of following the orders of the Court, filed a detailed report accepting the discrepancies, along with making an admission that the land to an extent of two acres and odd was classified as 'Chery Natham', which is in the middle of the property, and the same has to be re-classified and that in so far as the entry point was concerned, the property belongs to the Government. The contention put forth by the appellant is that in respect of 2.16 acres classified as Cherry Natham, though it could be re-classified, there was a proposal for exchange made by the Government. But, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the re-classification of Cherry Nathan was possible if the private owner was willing to provide for extension of village site in exchange for a land at the disposal of the Government. In so far as the entry point of the road is concerned, the Official Liquidator in his report has stated that the Court, if felt necessary, may issue directions to the Government to consider the same either for sale or lease out the same to the appellant. The appellant has specifically averred in para 13 of the affidavit, which reads as follows: