Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In reply Sh. Vishal Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the Bidder has submitted that the applicant-ARCIL has written a letter on 29.09.2017 in respect of sale of the secured assets pertaining to the property of company in liquidation by which the applicant has practically responded to its offer of `90.00 Crores for land and ` 2.00 Crores for building to sell it on "as is where is" and "as is what is" basis. He has further referred to letter 10.10.2017, which has the reference of the earlier letter dated 29.09.2017, in which the applicant has informed that the sale would be subject to the approval of the bid from the High Court after receipt of the entire money. He has also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Divya Manufacturing C. (P) Ltd. and another Vs. Union Bank of India and others; 2000 (3) PLR 369 to contend that in certain cases, inadequacy of price can also be gone into by the Court for the purpose of setting aside a confirmed sale. He has also referred to another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lica (P) Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator; 2000(6) SCC 79 and the decision of a single bench of this Court, passed in the matter of M/s Oswal Agro Furnace Ltd. (In liquidation) 2004 (2) PLR 1, to contend that the Court should lean towards the recovery of money as much as possible as it would be in the interest of the company in liquidation for making payment to the creditors. He has also submitted that the Bidder has given the offer of almost `10.00 Crores over and above the offer made by the Auction Purchaser 11 of 15 CA-1-2018 IN CP-217-2015 and CA-38-2018 IN CA-1-2018 which would be in the interest of the company in liquidation for the purpose of discharging its debts of the secured creditors etc. In rebuttal, Mr. Chetan Mittal, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of ARCIL and Mr. Ashwani Chopra, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Auction Purchaser, have unanimously submitted that the decision in the case of Divya Manufacturing (Supra) cannot be applied in the present scenario because there is no element of fraud involved in the present case as it has not been pleaded. It is also submitted by them that the fraud is not only to be pleaded but also to be proved at least prima facie so as to take the Court into confidence for setting aside the confirmed sale in favour of the Auction Purchaser. It is also submitted that the letters dated 29.09.2017 and 10.10.2017 are of no value for the Bidder, in view of the letter dated 16.10.2017, in which the Bidder has marginally revised its offer to the extent of ` 1.00 Crore which was still much below the reserved price and had imposed certain conditions which were totally unacceptable as the applicant was in need of money immediately whereas the Bidder was offering substantial amount of 75% in nine months.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and after the perusal of the record, am of the considered opinion that this application of ARCIL deserves to be allowed because there is no dispute that the land measuring 0.60 acres approximately is a part of a bigger chunk of land and would break the continuity of the land already purchased by the Auction Purchaser. It is also an admitted fact that the land of the company in liquidation has been put to auction three times and at last Auction Purchaser was found who has given 12 of 15 CA-1-2018 IN CP-217-2015 and CA-38-2018 IN CA-1-2018 the reserved price for purchasing the land in question. Additionally, the offer made by the Auction Purchaser has also been accepted by the Court vide its order dated 02.12.2017. The Bidder has failed to point out any defect in the auction procedure adopted by the applicant much less any collusion with the applicant and the Auction Purchaser or any fraud having been played in the auction proceedings. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the Auction Purchaser in the cases of Valji Khimji (Supra), Sadashiv Prasad Singh (Supra) and Vedica Procon Private Limited (Supra) are all squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and the decision relied upon by the Bidder in the case of M/s Divya Manufacturing C. (P) Ltd. (Supra), altogether on different facts and circumstances, is not applicable because the Bidder had been participating in the auction proceedings and did not offer even the reserved price for purchasing the same and cannot be allowed at present to turn around to say that he would offer more money than the Auction Purchaser.