Industries Ltd. Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. & Anr  Insc 331 (5 August 2002)
Babu & P. Venkatarama Reddi. Rajendra Babu, J. :
J U D
G M E N T
respondents brought a suit on the original side of the Bombay High Court for recovery
of certain sum of money against the petitioner and the Guarantor. In respect of
machinery which had been stated to have been financed by the respondent-Bank a
Court Receiver was appointed and the respondents took out a Notice of Motion
making several prayers, including one for sale of the suit machinery.
learned trial Judge refused the prayer for the same. On appeal to the Division
Bench, the same had been allowed subject to sanction of the court and with
liberty to the petitioner to participate in the sale as and when it is held.
Pursuant to the order of sale, the respondents issued advertisement and also
received offers for the same. An application was made to the Division Bench
seeking permission for sale of the suit machinery to the person having made the
best offer which was at Rs. 1.26 crores. However, subsequently, the petitioner
offered a sum of Rs. 1.30 crores. The Division Bench had refused to consider
the said request. Hence this petition.
Division Bench of the High Court is of the opinion that nothing had been done
by the petitioner to take part in the sale as and when it was sought to be held
and did not participate in the same. It was made clear in the advertisement
that interested parties should apply within 15 days and, therefore, the High
Court is of the opinion that there was no bona fides on the part of the
an attempt is sought to be made by the petitioner to participate in the sale
proceedings by contending that it is at the stage of confirmation of sale that
the petitioner's request ought to be considered if it is the best offer
available in the market and viable. This exercise appears to us to be only the
after-thought and the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court does
not call for any interference. The High Court cannot be stated to have mis-understood
its own order. In the circumstances of the case, we do not think that any
interference is called for in the order made by the High Court. The amounts of
money deposited by the petitioner pursuant to order dated 3.5.2002 be refunded.
Subject as aforesaid, the petition stands dismissed. No costs.