Supreme Court Judgments
Solutions Ltd. Vs. La Medical Devices Ltd. & Ors.  INSC 1061 (9 July
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4271 OF 2008 ARISING OUT
OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 21123/2007 FCS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LTD.
... APPELLANT VERSUS
C.K. THAKKER, J.
The appellant also
complained about the threat administered by the Official Liquidator.
According to the
appellant, thereafter on February 15, 2005, the Official Liquidator accepted
the bid of the appellant for Rs. 1.47 4 crores for immovable property. The
appellant on its own had forgone its claim of leased machinery. The Official
Liquidator also instructed the appellant to deposit 25% of the bid amount for
immovable property within fifteen days. The appellant, however, deposited the
said amount on the same day, i.e. February 15, 2005. According to the
appellant, the Company Judge having found the auction in accordance with law
and for adequate price and there being no other objection, confirmed the
auction sale in favour of the appellant-Company on March 24, 2005. The Company
Judge also directed the Official Liquidator to hand over possession of the Unit
by executing sale deed in favour of the appellant after receiving full and
final payment within one month. The Official Liquidator conveyed the appellant
vide his letter dated April 4, 2005 that an order was passed by the Company
Judge in favour of the appellant. The appellant was also asked to deposit the
rest of the amount immediately.
5 On receiving the
letter dated April 4, 2005 from the Official Liquidator, the appellant
deposited the remaining amount on April 12, 2005. The appellant thereby became
entitled to receive possession and execution of sale deed in respect of
immovable property of the Company. By a communication dated April 21, 2005, the
Official Liquidator informed the appellant that possession of the property
would be handed over to the appellant on May 6, 2005 at 11.30 a.m.
appellant-Company, hence, sent a telegraphic notice to the Official Liquidator
and requested him to immediately comply with 6 the order of the Company Judge
confirming sale and handing over possession to the appellant.
Instead of complying
with the order of the Court and handing over possession of the property, the
Official Liquidator sent a letter purported to have been written on May 5,
2005, stating therein that possession would not be given to the appellant on
May 06, 2005 as higher bid of Rs.1.55 crores had been received and order for
handing over possession to the appellant had been stayed by the Hon'ble Court.
The appellant made
enquiries and it was found that it was at the instance of the Official
Liquidator himself that Company Application No. 178 of 2005 before the Company
Judge was moved and he created obstruction in delivery of possession of
property to the appellant on the alleged ground that he had received higher
offer. The appellant stated that other two persons also offered more amount.
The appellant, in the circumstances, filed Company Application NO. 407 of 2005
under Rule 9 of the 7 Company Court Rules, 1959 read with Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stating therein that it had paid full amount,
sale was confirmed and in spite of the order by the Company Judge, possession
had not been handed over to the appellant. A prayer was made to direct Official
Liquidator to hand over possession of property to the appellant.
offers were also received by Official Liquidator. One Satish Choudhary offered
an amount of Rs.2.10 crores. Keeping in view all the facts, the learned Company
Judge, vide his order dated February 16, 2006 directed re-sale of property by
issuing fresh advertisement in the newspapers mentioned in the order. It was
also observed that the reserve price would be fixed at Rs.2.10 crores.
Tenders should reach
in the office of Official Liquidator latest on March 22, 2006, and would be
opened in Court at 1.45 p.m. on March 23, 2006 and inter-se bidding would be
permitted at that time.