Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6.   Today,   the   auction   proceedings   are  undertaken   in   the   open   Court   and   after  inter­se  bid   of   12   rounds,   M/s.Vedica  Procon Pvt. Ltd. has offered highest amount  of Rs.148 crores as the sale consideration.  It may further be noted that the applicant  of   Company   Application   No.295   of   2013,  M/s.Balleshwar   Greens   Pvt.   Ltd.   is   the  second   highest   bidder   and   has   offered  Rs.146 crores for the land in question. It  may   be   noted   that   rest   of   the   bidders  withdrew their bids at various stages of 12  rounds. 

9. In view of the above discussion, the bid  of M/s.Vedica Procon Pvt. Ltd., being the  highest   bidder,   who   has   offered   Rs.148  Crores for the land mentioned in the tender  notice   deserves   to   be   accepted   and   is  hereby   accepted   as   per   the   tender  conditions   on   as   is   where   is   basis   and  whatever there is basis. 

10.   Mr.Vimal   Purohit,   learned   counsel   for  the   applicant   appearing   in   Company  Application   No.304   of   2013,   has   expressed  that   the   Court   may   permit   one   nominee.  However, considering the conditions of the  tender notice, no orders are passed today.  It   would   be   open   for   the   applicant   to  approach   this   Court   by   way   of   filing   a  proper application. It may further be noted  that as per condition No.29 of the tender  notice, EMD price of second highest bidder  viz.   M/s.Balleshwar   Greens   Pvt.   Ltd.­  applicant of Company Application No.295 of  2013   shall   be   retained   by   the   Official  Liquidator.   The   Official   Liquidator   shall  take appropriate actions as envisaged under  the conditions of the tender notice, more  particularly   conditions   No.29,   32   and   33.  As per the conditions of the tender notice,  the Official Liquidator shall return EMD if  any   paid   by   the   applicants   of   the  unsuccessful bidders, except the applicant  of Company Application No.295 of 2013, as  stated above, within the time prescribed in  the tender notice. The envelopes containing  offers   given   by   M/s.JPS   Entrade  International   Pvt.Ltd.   and   M/s.Siddhi  Developers   are   returned   back   to   the  Official Liquidator in a sealed cover.

11. In view of the aforesaid, the present  report stands disposed of. It is, however,  clarified   that   the   prayers   prayed   for   in  the   prayer   (B)   is   not   granted   as   the  Official   Liquidator   has   already   filed  separate report being Official Liquidator's  Report No.76 of 2013. Ordered accordingly."

EVENTS AFTER THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2013:­

9. The Official Liquidator thereafter informed the  highest   bidder   Vedica   Procon   Pvt.   Ltd.   -   opponent  No.9 herein to deposit 25% of the sale consideration  as per conditions of tender on or before 16.1.2014  and   the   balance   remaining   amount   being   75%   i.e.  Rs.106.50   crores   on   or   before   16.4.2014   after  adjusting   Rs.4.5   crores   being   EMD   amount   in   final  payment   of   the   sale   proceeds   by   a   communication  dated   19.12.2013.   The   record  indicates   that   the  successful bidder i.e. opponent No.9 ­ Vedica Procon  Pvt.   Ltd.   deposited   an   amount   of   Rs.37   crores   on  16.1.2014. It is also a matter of record that as per  condition No.29, the present applicant who happens  to   be   the   second  highest  bidder  has  been  refunded  the   EMD   amount   of   Rs.4.5   crores   by   the   Official  Liquidator on 13.1.2014, on the request made by the  applicant   itself   on   9.1.2014.   The   record   further  indicates that the successful bidder opponent No.9 ­  Vedica Procon Pvt. Ltd. has also been permitted by  the   Official   Liquidator   to   deploy   its   security  guards  on   condition  that  it   can  post  its  security  the lands in question to protect their interest. 

Page 52 of 205 O/OJMCA/89/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

28.3 As   far   as   point   No.(iii)   is   concerned,   it   is  contended   that   the   applicant   participated   in   the  inter­se bidding, wherein opponent No.9 was declared  to   be   the   highest  bidder  and  the  applicant  herein  was the second highest bidder. It was contended that  as per condition No.29 of the terms and conditions  issued by the Official Liquidator, the EMD amount of  the second highest bidder i.e. the applicant was to  be retained by the Official Liquidator till the time  opponent No.9 deposits 25% of the sale consideration  and   such   EMD   amount   was   to   be   returned   to   the  applicant   only   thereafter.   It   is   the   case   of  opponent   No.9   that   it   deposited   25%   of   the   sale  consideration   on   or   about   6.1.2014.   That,   on  9.1.2014,   the   applicant   addressed   a   letter   to   the  Official   Liquidator   requesting   the   Official  Liquidator that as this Court has accepted the bid  of   opponent   No.9   and   that   opponent   No.9,   as   a  successful   bidder,   has   deposited   25%   of   the   sale  consideration, the EMD amount of the applicant along  with  late  fee  charges  be   refunded  at   the  earliest  and   accordingly,   the   Official   Liquidator   refunded  the EMD amount to the applicant on 31.1.2014. It was  contended   that   this   fact   and   the   conduct   of   the  applicant clearly suggests that the applicant has no  objection   regarding   auction   of  property   or  inadequacy   of   the   price   at   the   relevant   point   of  time and these vital facts have been  suppressed by  the   applicant   in   the   application.   It  was   further  contended   that   the   applicant   was   not   aggrieved   by  the order dated 17.12.2013 and no appeal even till  date has been preferred by the applicant and thus,  having   waived   its   right,   the   applicant   cannot   be  permitted to agitate the issue under the garb of the  present application. It was contended that thus, the  applicant has lost its right to seek recall/review  of   the   order   dated   17.12.2013   by   waiver,   estoppel  and acquiescence.