NARENDRAKUMAR NAKHAT Vs. NANDI HASBI TEXTILE MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

(2.) The appellant is challenging in these appeals the order dated 8-10-96 passed by the High Court in Company Application No. 542/96 made in Company Petition No. 25/85 and also the order dated 21-2-97 passed in Company Application No. 826/96. The appellant in Company Application No. 542/96 had prayed for refund of Rs. 5 lakhs (being the earnest money deposit) and Rs. 59 lakhs (being 25% of the bid amount sale consideration) along with accrued interest on the ground that his bid having been cancelled by the High Court, he was entitled to get back those amounts. The High Court directed the official Liquidator to refund Rs. 50 lakhs and with respect to the remaining amount rejected that application on 8-10-96. The Syndicate Bank had filed Company Application No. 743/96 with a prayer to award compensation to it and not to refund the said amounts till then. It was also rejected on the same day. The bank has not challenged that order probably because the whole amount was not ordered to be refunded. The appellant then filed a review petition (Company Application No. 826/96) but it was rejected on 21-2-97.

(3.) The High Court rejected the claim for refund of the earnest money on the ground that at that stage it was not proper to grant it as that might affect the right of the official Liquidator to forfeit that amount in case it is held that he has suffered some loss as a result of the conduct of the appellant. As regards the claim of the Syndicate Bank for damages the High Court merely stated that "in view of the order made in Company Application No. 542 of 1996, this application stands rejected." In the order passed on Company Application No. 542 of 1996 there is no discussion regarding the Bank's claim for damages or regarding the claim of damages by the General Body of Liquidators on account of the dilatory tactics adopted by the appellant in the proceedings for confirmation of sale. The only observation made in that order is "the question whether the amounts due by the applicant by reason of non-performance of his part of the contract in any manner arises and the damages payable by him could be appropriately adjudicated at a later stage."