Gujarat High Court
Manibhadra Sales Corporation vs Official Liquidator Of M/S.Aarti Agro ... on 21 December, 2015
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
O/OJMCA/193/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (OJ) NO. 193 of 2015
In OFFICIAL LIQUDATOR REPORT NO. 41 of 2015
In COMPANY PETITION NO. 12 of 1996
==========================================================
MANIBHADRA SALES CORPORATION....Applicant(s)
Versus
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S.AARTI AGRO INDUSTRIES
LIMITED(IN LIQUIDATION) & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL S RACHH, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JS YADAV, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR NAVIN K PAHWA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 21/12/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is filed for modification of order dated 19.06.2015 made by this Court in Official Liquidator Report No.41 of 2015 in Company Petition No.12 of 1996 whereby this Court directed the applicant to deposit 25% of purchase price within one month from the date of confirmation of sale and balance 75% of purchase price within 4 months thereafter.
2. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Premal Rachh appearing for the applicant that the applicant had already deposited a sum of Rs.40 lakhs towards EMD amount and also made payment of 25% of purchase price being Rs.1.5 crores within a period of Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Wed Dec 23 02:16:23 IST 2015 O/OJMCA/193/2015 ORDER one month from the date of confirmation of sale.
3. It is further submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Rachh that during the recent past, because of sudden decrease in the prices of scrap and poor market conditions, there was steep reduction in the business of sales of scrap which affected the turnover and cash in flow of the applicant. It is submitted that the above market condition in the scrap business is likely to continue for a couple of months. It is further submitted that the applicant has invested huge amount in the above scrap business. However, due to reduction in the price of scrap and poor market condition in the recent past, the amount invested by the applicant has been blocked. It is submitted on behalf of applicant that in the circumstances, the applicant could not deposit the balance 75% of purchase price within the time framed by this Court and therefore, request is made to extend the time for depositing the remaining amount within a period 3 months.
4. During the pendency of this application, this Court vide order dated 27.11.2015 accepted the request made by the applicant to deposit Rs.1,02,50,000/- on or before 18.12.2015 with the office of Official Liquidator. It is submitted on behalf of applicant that accordingly, the applicant deposited the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,02,50,000/- on 17.12.2015 with the office of Official Liquidator.
5. Learned advocate Mr. J.S.Yadav appearing for the Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Wed Dec 23 02:16:23 IST 2015 O/OJMCA/193/2015 ORDER Official Liquidator has strongly opposed this application and submitted that the advertisement was given by the Official Liquidator for the sale of the property in question. At the time of submitting the offer the applicant was aware about the terms and conditions of the sale of the property in question of the company in liquidation. This Court has granted sufficient time i.e. initial one month time for the purpose of depositing 25% of the purchase price and thereafter four months time was granted for depositing the balance 75% of the purchase price and therefore this Court may not grant the extension as prayed for by the applicant and the amount deposited by the applicant be forfeited as per the terms and condition. Alternatively, learned advocate Mr. Yadav submitted that if this Court is inclined to extend the time for depositing the remaining amount to the applicant, the applicant be directed to pay the balance amount with 15% interest from the expiry of the period of four months i.e. from 18.11.2015. Learned advocate Mr. Yadav further submitted that the time prayed for by the applicant is too long and one month's time is already granted by this Court from 18.11.2015 and therefore now the applicant be directed to pay the balance amount with interest within a period of one month.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Navin K. Pahwa appearing for respondent No.2 has also opposed this application and supported the submission canvassed by learned advocate Mr. Yadav.
Page 3 of 4
HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Wed Dec 23 02:16:23 IST 2015
O/OJMCA/193/2015 ORDER
7. Having considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the averments made in this application and the documents produced on record, I am of the opinion that the present application is required to be partly allowed on certain terms and conditions. It is not in dispute that the applicant had deposited 25% of the purchase price within the stipulated time limit. Thereafter also as per the directions given by this Court by an order dated 27.11.2015 the applicant had deposited further amount of Rs.1,02,50,000/- before 18th December 2015. Thus the applicant is directed to deposit the balance amount of 75% of purchase price on or before 25.01.2016 with interest at the rate of 12% for the delayed period. It is made clear that no further extension shall be granted to the applicant as sufficient indulgence is given by this Court.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present application stands disposed of.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) Jani Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Wed Dec 23 02:16:23 IST 2015