Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: common open plot in Suraj Enterprises vs O.L. Of Wood Polymers Ltd. on 5 November, 2004Matching Fragments
5.1 That now only land of the Company (in liquidation) was required to be disposed of and it was common knowledge that open plot of land would always fetch a better return. That with passage of time in future, even after re-valuation, the creditors would be in a position to get better price if the land was otherwise not having any superstructure or any other encumbrance thereupon. That accordingly the offer was far too less and not attractive enough to be taken into consideration.
6. Mr. Mihir Joshi in rejoinder submitted that the contention regarding letter dated 18-10-2004 being back dated or having been filed later in point of time was not stated by respondent No. 1 - the Official Liquidator and hence, the said aspect should not be a relevant consideration. Responding to the submission regarding the applicant already being in possession of the order dated 14-10-2004 when the aforesaid letter dated 18-10-2004 was addressed to the Official Liquidator, Mr. Joshi submitted that this issue was never raised earlier in point of time, otherwise the applicant would have tendered appropriate reply. In relation to the contention regarding the contradiction about business of the applicant, it was submitted that the applicant was in the business of trading in steel and plant and machinery were definitely such items which would fall within the business of the applicant. The contention regarding source of information about the properties of the Company (in liquidation) being available was stated to be a business acquaintance at Surat as mentioned in Paragraph No. 6 of the rejoinder. The contention that the applicant was making an offer even without taking inspection of the properties was sought to be repelled by submitting that the applicant who was a businessman was taking a business risk which was perceived by the applicant to be in favour of the applicant viz. the applicant would earn out of purchase of such properties. In relation to the contention regarding bona fides of the applicant it was submitted that the attempt was nothing else but to stall an inquiry and the Court should not permit such an attempt.