Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan would submit that it is pertinent to note that the Official Liquidator has not yet adjudicated upon the claims called for; that without the crystallization of the amount, there was no reason to sell all the properties; that the Official Liquidator owed a duty to the contributories to release the best amounts by selling only such of the properties that is required to discharge all the liabilities crystallized and return to the company along with the surplus assets to give back to the contributories; that it is to be noted that the valuation given by ITCOT is very low; that the Official Liquidator cannot bring the entire properties to sale only for realizing a sum of mere Rs.25 lakhs; that the appellant or any other contributory is entitled to appeal at any stage if it affects the contributories; that the upset price quoted was lower than the market value; that it is pertinent to note that appeals were filed by the applicant before the DRAT and therefore the sale of the properties by the Company Court would render such appeal infructuous and redundant, and under the circumstances, the orders of the learned Single Judge have got to be set aside and the sale be set aside.

6.This Court also heard the learned Counsel for the auction purchaser, creditor banks and also the employees' Union and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.

7.All these appeals concentrate in attacking the sale of three items of properties of the company in liquidation. They are shown as item 1  Lot 'A' land and building in 'A' Mill and 'B' Mill, item 2  Lot 'B' plant and machineries and other movables in 'A' Mill and item 3  Lot 'B' plant and machineries and other movables in 'B' Mill. Pursuant to the order of winding up dated 3.12.2008, the Official Liquidator who was initially appointed as Provisional Liquidator, was subsequently appointed as Official Liquidator. An appeal preferred challenging the same in OSA No.312 of 2008 was dismissed. On 31.7.2008, pursuant to the directions of the Company Court in C.A.No.2107 of 2008, the claims of the creditors of the company in liquidation were called. On 12.9.2008, the Company Court directed the secured creditor namely the Indian Bank, to furnish a copy of the valuation report. On 19.9.2008, the Company Court directed the Official Liquidator to value the properties through ITCOT. Following the same, on 24.9.2008, an order was passed by the Company Court directing the Official Liquidator to take possession of the properties belonging to the company in liquidation. An order came to be passed on 3.12.2008, directing the Official Liquidator to take steps to sell the properties fixing the upset price of the immovable assets at Rs.48,44,00,000/-. Some part payments made by the company in liquidation were recorded by the Company Court. On the first day of auction namely 23.1.2009, since there was only one offer and the same was also below the upset price, the auction was postponed. Though the Company Court directed the company in liquidation to pay Rs.25,08,395/- to the Official Liquidator on or before 4.3.2009, the same was not done. At this juncture, it becomes necessary to state that once the Official Liquidator has been appointed and the properties are vested on him, such a direction to the company in liquidation to pay the said sum to the Official Liquidator would not arise. The Company Court directed the Official Liquidator to proceed with the sale as per the order dated 3.12.2008, since the company in liquidation did not make the payment of Rs.25,08,395/- as stated above. On the next date of auction namely 30.7.2009, there was only one offer, which was below the upset price. The publication was also made only in two newspapers, but not in three as ordered. The Official Liquidator was also directed to find out the purchasers. The auction was posted to 7.9.2009. But the auction was not held that day. The same was adjourned to 15.9.2009. On that day, for purchase of all the three items, the offerers were present in Court. They made their offers. The Court accepted the highest offer made by the offerers present in Court and subsequently confirmed the sale. The above sale proceedings and the confirmation of sale are challenged in these appeals.