Balleshwar Greens Pvt Ltd vs Official Liquidator Of M/S Omex ... on 11 August, 2014
In the said decision
Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 43 (2.53 seconds)Divya Manufacturing Co.,Tirupati Wool ... vs Union Bank Of India , The Official ... on 11 July, 2000
The matter was again brought before this Court and in LICA
(P) Ltd. (2) v. Official Liquidator & Anr. [(1996) 85
Comp. Cases 792] and the Court held: Proper control of
the proceedings and meaningful intervention by the court
would prevent the formation of a syndicate, underbidding and
the resultant sale of property for an inadequate price. The
order passed by this court yielded the result that the
property which would have been finalised at Rs.45 lakhs,
fetched Rs.1.10 crores and in this court a further offer of
Rs.1.25 crores is made. In other words, the property under
sale is capable of fetching a higher market price. Under
these circumstances, though there is some force in the
contention of Sri Ramaswamy that the court auction may not
normally be repeatedly disturbed, since this court, on the
earlier occasion, had limited the auction between the two
bidders, the impediment will not stand in the way to direct
sale afresh. Even today the parties are prepared to
participate in the bid.
Akshar Corporation vs O.L. Of Vivekanand Mills Ltd. on 29 September, 2004
15. I have considered the valuation report, existing liability of the municipal tax and also the judgments of the Supreme Court in Divya Mfg Divya Mfg Co. (P) Ltd v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 2346, Allahabad Bank v. Bengal Paper Mills Co. Ltd, reported in 96 Company Cases p.804, Lica (P) Ltd (No.1) v. Official Liquidator and Anr., reported in 85 Company Cases 788, and Lica (P) Ltd (No.2) v. Official Liquidator and Anr., reported in 85 Company Cases 792. It is no doubt true that the trend of the judgments is to see that the Court should always get more price. The Court is custodia-legis of the property of the company and it is always desirable to have more money. But I have also considered the adequacy of the price offered, the overall aspect regarding sanctity of contract and offer given by the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 has not only made part payment and obtained physical possession of the property, but has also parted with a part of the property to third party. Therefore, third party rights have been created. In view of the same, in my view, there is no necessity to accept the offer of the applicant.
In Re: Elson Cotton Mills Ltd. (In ... vs Unknown on 9 December, 2004
13. No doubt, in the present case sale was confirmed in favor of the auction purchaser in May, 2003, i.e. 11/2 years ago. Would it mean that even the sale is concluded in all respects? Answer is: No. It will still be open for the Court to set aside such sale when better bids are received thereafter when application is moved at distant time, caution is to be exercised and the rights accrued, if any, in favor of the auction purchaser cannot be overlooked. No doubt, such a process cannot go on endlessly and for indefinite period. Where to draw the line is the poser. Answer to this is provided in LICA (P) Ltd. (supra), which is affirmed in Divya Manufacturing (supra), i.e. so long the possession is not handed over to the purchaser or the sale deed is not executed, the Court could re-open the sale in the interest of justice.
Digital Devices Limited vs Unknown on 22 May, 2006
14. In the present case sale deed admittedly has not been executed in favor of the auction purchaser. The possession was handed over to the auction purchaser on 10th November, 2005 but before the said date on 8th November, 2005, M/s PVR Housing Private Limited had already filed CA No. 1645/2005 enhancing their bid to Rs. 55 lacs. It is impossible to believe that the auction purchaser was not aware about this offer made by M/s PVR Housing Private Limited. Further, M/s. PVR Housing Pvt. Ltd. had expressed its willingness to purchase/bid for the property vide letter dated 25th October, 2005, giving bid of Rs. 52 lakhs. The Official Liquidator did not respond to the said letter and inform M/s.P.V.R. Housing Pvt. Ltd about the next date of hearing on 27th October, 2005. On the said date, the bid of M/s.Arora Udyog Ltd was confirmed. This was done in the absence of M/s. P.V.R. Housing Pvt. Ltd. In these circumstances, I feel that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lica (P) Limited (supra) and Divya Manufacturing (supra) should be applied.
Hargreaves Investments Ltd. vs The Appellate Authority For Industrial ... on 18 January, 2008
15. The matter was again brought before this Court and in LICA (P) Ltd. (2) v. Official Liquidator (1996) 85 Comp Case 792, the Court held:
Collector vs Liquidator - Petrofils Co-Operative ... on 23 October, 2015
15. The matter was again brought before this Court and in
LICA (P) Ltd. (2) v. Official Liquidator & Anr. [(1996) 85 Comp.
Cases 792] and the Court held: Proper control of the proceedings
and meaningful intervention by the court would prevent the
formation of a syndicate, underbidding and the resultant sale of
property for an inadequate price. The order passed by this court
yielded the result that the property which would have been
finalised at Rs.45 lakhs, fetched Rs.1.10 crores and in this court
a further offer of Rs.1.25 crores is made. In other words, the
property under sale is capable of fetching a higher market price.
Under these circumstances, though there is some force in the
contention of Sri Ramaswamy that the court auction may not
normally be repeatedly disturbed, since this court, on the earlier
occasion, had limited the auction between the two bidders, the
impediment will not stand in the way to direct sale afresh. Even
today the parties are prepared to participate in the bid."
Rammohansingh Badshahsingh Tomar vs Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal on 6 September, 2018
23. It may be noted that the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of LICA (P) Ltd. v. Official Liquidator (supra) on
which strong reliance has been placed by the learned advocate
Page 34 of 53
C/SCA/3131/2018 JUDGMENT
for the respondent No.5 has been considered by the Supreme
Court in the case of Divya Manufacturing Company (P) Limited,
v. Union Bank of India (supra) and the decision of the Supreme
Court in Divya Manufacturing Company (P) Limited, v. Union
Bank of India (supra) has been referred to in the above
referred decision of Vedica Procon (P) Ltd. v. Balleshwar
Greens (P) Ltd. (supra).
Everest Fincap Pvt. Ltd vs Krishna Relaors And 15 Others on 28 August, 2017
15. The matter was again brought before this Court and in LICA (P)
Ltd. (2) v. Official Liquidator and the Court held:
M/S Shree Shailja Iron & Steel (Pvt.) ... vs Official Liquidator & Another on 7 December, 2010
The Court in this connection, relied upon earlier two decisions in LICA (P) Ltd. (1) vs. Official Liquidator and LICA (P) Ltd (2) v. Official Liquidator.