Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. By an order dated March 3, 2000 the order of winding up was recalled on the basis of a terms of settlement arrived at by and between the management of the company in liquidation and the petitioning creditor. There was settlement with WBFC. The assets were repossessed by the company in liquidation on March 22, 2000.

7. The order of winding up was again revived on June 12, 2001 in view of default committed by the company. The WBFC again took possession of the assets and properties on August 16, 2001. There had been further attempt to revive the said company. There had been further payment to WBFC in terms of the settlement arrived at. However, such attempt failed. Pursuant to the earlier direction of Ronojit Kumar Mitra, J. (as His Lordship then was) passed on October 4, 1999 WBFC conducted the sale and the sale was completed in favour of ANMOL Snax Limited (hereinafter referred to as "ANMOL") subject to confirmation by this Court. Such sale price was however below the valuation done by the WBFC. The assets were valued by WBFC at Rs. 44.6 lacs. According to WBFC the Official Liquidator was time to time informed about such sale.

8. By an order dated September 2, 2003 this Court confirmed the sale in favour of ANMOL at a sum of Rs. 37.5 lacs.

9. In the earlier order dated October 4, 1999 WBFC undertook to pay the workmen in accordance with law. Hence, by the said order dated September 2, 2003 the Official Liquidator was granted liberty to invite claims and settle the dues of the creditors. The Official Liquidator was directed to send the particulars of the workers' claim to the WBFC for making payment.

10. After entire payment was made by the purchaser the WBFC handed over possession on October 1, 2003 to the successful purchaser. Since October 1, 2003 the purchaser ANMOL had been in possession of the assets. According to them after taking possession they invested a sum of Rs. 21.25 lacs for purchase of new machineries as well as for making the plant ready for operation.

14. Mr. P.K. Roy, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing in support of the first application being C.A.No. 532 of 2003 contended as follows :

(i) The sale conducted by WBFC was contrary to the direction of this Court as contained in order dated October 4,1999 inasmuch as Official Liquidator was not informed at any stage.
(ii) The property was sold at a price much below the valuation done by WBFC.
(iii) WBFC at one point of time agreed to have the entire claim settled at Rs. 41.00 lac out of which a sum of Rs. 8.00 lac had already been paid leaving a balance sum of Rs. 33.00 lac. Hence, the sale should be set aside with liberty to the petitioner to pay the said sum of Rs. 33.00 lacs in full and final settlement of the claim of WBFC.

19. It is well-settled principle of law that once the sale is conducted under the supervision of the Court and the same is confirmed by the Court the same should not be set aside except on cogent reasons otherwise there would be no sanctity to the Court orders. From the chronology of events it would appear that from time to time the company in liquidation was given opportunity by this Court to pay all the creditors including WBFC. The company could not adhere to their commitments made before this Court. It is true that at one point of time WBFC accepted Rs. 41.00 lacs in full and final settlement although their claim was much more than the said sum. Such acceptance was conditional upon payment of the said sum in stipulated manner. The company could not pay within the stipulated period. Hence, it would not be appropriate for me to compel WBFC to accept a sum of Rs. 33.00 lacs in full and final settlement of their claim at a much belated stage. WBFC being a public financial institution cannot be called upon to accept much lesser sum than that of their claim.