Vedica Procon Private Limited vs Balleshwar Greens Private Limited And ... on 13 August, 2015
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and after the perusal
of the record, am of the considered opinion that this application of ARCIL
deserves to be allowed because there is no dispute that the land measuring
0.60 acres approximately is a part of a bigger chunk of land and would break
the continuity of the land already purchased by the Auction Purchaser. It is
also an admitted fact that the land of the company in liquidation has been put
to auction three times and at last Auction Purchaser was found who has given
12 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 12:05:12 :::
Page 13 of 15
CA-1-2018 IN CP-217-2015 and
CA-38-2018 IN CA-1-2018
the reserved price for purchasing the land in question. Additionally, the offer
made by the Auction Purchaser has also been accepted by the Court vide its
order dated 02.12.2017. The Bidder has failed to point out any defect in the
auction procedure adopted by the applicant much less any collusion with the
applicant and the Auction Purchaser or any fraud having been played in the
auction proceedings. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the Auction
Purchaser in the cases of Valji Khimji (Supra), Sadashiv Prasad Singh
(Supra) and Vedica Procon Private Limited (Supra) are all squarely
applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and the decision relied
upon by the Bidder in the case of M/s Divya Manufacturing C. (P) Ltd.
(Supra), altogether on different facts and circumstances, is not applicable
because the Bidder had been participating in the auction proceedings and did
not offer even the reserved price for purchasing the same and cannot be
allowed at present to turn around to say that he would offer more money than
the Auction Purchaser.