Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.81 seconds)
Documents citing Manoj I Naik & Associates vs Official Liquidator on 28 October, 2014

Vedica Procon Private Limited vs Balleshwar Greens Private Limited And ... on 13 August, 2015

42. Manoj I Naik & Associates v. Official Liquidator, (2015) 3 SCC 112, once again was a case where certain properties of a company in liquidation was brought to sale. The company Judge declined to accept the highest offer received on the ground that the value of the property would be much higher than what was offered. Eventually, when the matter reached this Court at the instance of the highest bidder, the highest bidder himself substantially raised his offer whereas certain other respondents also offered much higher amounts for the property. From the judgment, it appears that there was virtually a scramble for the property, each of the parties to the proceedings offering very high prices. While the original successful bidder’s offer was only Rs.1.3 crores, by the time the matter was heard and disposed of by this Court, it reached an amount of Rs.70 crores. Once again, it must be noticed that there is a time gap of almost a decade. It is not possible to cull out from the judgment the actual date of the auction by the official liquidator.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 56 - Full Document

Alkhnanda Stone Crusher Through ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 October, 2023

In support of his submissions, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various decisions in the cases of JSW Cement Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported as [2019 (1) RLW 612 (Raj.)] paras 4, 16, 21, 25, 32 and 35; Manoj I Naik and Associates Vs. Official Liquidator reported as (2015) 3 SCC 112 paras 12 and 14; M/s. Rajshila Vs. State of U.P. and others reported as 1993 Supp (1) SCC 477; Ram and Shyam Company Vs. State of Haryana and others reported as (1985) 3 SCC 267 paras 6, 10 and 12; M/s. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy, Represented by Its Partner Shri Kasturi Lal, Ward No.4, Palace Bar, Poonch, Jammu and Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Another reported as (1980) 4 SCC 1 paras 11 to 14; Cineom Broadcast India Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai reported as 2022 SCC Online Bom 11778 paras 4 and 13; Birla Ericsson Optical Ltd. and another Vs. Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. reported as 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2541 para 21.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S Abhyankar - Full Document

Sarita Devi vs Secretary on 16 August, 2017

58. Significantly, said decision stands followed in Manoj I Naik & Associates vs. Official Liquidator, (2015) 3 SCC 112; Rakesh Kumar Goel & others vs. Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited & others, (2010) 8 SCC 263; Meerut Development Authority (supra); Nagar Nigam, Meerut vs. Al Faheem Mid Exports (P) Ltd. & others, (2006) 13 SCC 382; Ramchandra Murarilal Bhattad & others vs. State of Mahrashtra & others, (2007) 2 SCC 588; Tata Cellular (supra); and Haji T. M. Hassan Rawther (supra).
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amr - Dev Prabha vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary on 12 April, 2018

He has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ram and Shyam Company Vs. State of Haryana and others (1985) 3 SCC 267 and Manoj I Naik and Associates Vs. Official Liquidator (2015) 3 SCC 112. On the basis of these submissions, finding of the Learned Single Judge has been assailed. He submits that even during the course of hearing in the present appeal also, an offer was made by the appellant which is Rs. 455 crores lower other than the amount offered. The Respondent BCCL were asked to take instruction and file reply. Despite being a huge difference in the offer of the appellant, the BCCL chose to ignore it. As a matter of fact, it proceeded to issue the Letter of Intent in favour of the Respondent No. 8 on 23.11.2017 which amounted to overreaching the orders passed by this Court.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Raj Singhania vs Chinar Steel Segment Centre Pvt Ltd & Ors on 30 September, 2022

27. The Learned Adjudicating Authority based on the law laid down by 'Manoj I Naik & Associates' Vs. 'Official Liquidator'1 and 'Bank of India' Vs. 'Enfield Apparels Limited & Ors.2 set aside the auction holding that there is a material irregularity in conducting e-Auction of the 'Corporate Debtor' as 'a 1 SLP Nos. 34783-34783/2012 2 MANU/NC/5994/2020 -21- Comp. Apps. (AT) (Ins.) No. 465 & 264 of 2022 Going Concern' and directed to hold fresh Auction inviting bids afresh, strictly adhering to the procedure.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Mettur Textiles Mills Quarters ... vs The Official Liquidator on 3 July, 2015

Further by referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Naik & Associates vs. Official Liquidator reported in (2015) 3 SCC 112, it is submitted that when the properties of the Company under liquidation are sold, there has to be a proper auction and it must be a fair one and it should fetch the maximum price. Further, it is submitted that the property would have fetched about Rs.15/- crores at the relevant point of time and this was not considered by the Company Court, while passing the order dated 02.02.2012 and these aspects were not considered by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order, dated 28.02.2013. On the above submissions, the learned Senior counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document
1