INDIA CAPACITORS LTD. Vs. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s. India Capacitors Ltd. (for short, "the said Company"), a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, "the said Act"), was directed by an Order of the learned Company Judge dated 23.10.1997 to be wound up and the Official Liquidator (for short, "OL") was directed to take possession of the assets of the said Company. The endeavours to revive the said Company had failed, but the Union of the Employees of the said Company filed an application on 05.05.2005 under Sections 529A and 546 of the said Act submitting a proposal for revival of the said Company along with one M/s. Cygnus Developers Pvt. Ltd. (for short, "M/s. Cygnus").

(2.) IT is a case of the Employees Union that M/s. Cygnus was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lacs on 26.05.2005 with the further direction to deposit an additional sum of Rs. 65 lacs with the OL. It is further claimed that though a cheque of Rs. 65 lacs was given to the OL, the same was never presented, but, on the other hand, the application filed by the Employees Union was dismissed on 04.08.2005 when a bid made by M/s. Balaji High Rise Pvt. Ltd. (for short, "M/s. Balaji") was accepted. M/s. Cygnus is alleged to have prepared demand drafts on 11th/12th August, 2005 aggregating to Rs. 65 lacs and an application was filed before the learned Company Judge seeking acceptance of the same. This application was, however, dismissed on 15.09.2005. The matter went on before the learned Company Judge thereafter till the Orders were passed on 25.05.2006 by the learned Company Judge holding fresh auctions and accepting a bid of M/s. Balaji for Rs. 7 crores though there was no undertaking given for re -employment of the workers of the said Company.

(3.) THERE is a second set of two appeals being Co. App. No. 42/2006 and Co. App. No. 47/2006 filed by M/s. Omkam Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Krishna Cell Links Pvt. Ltd. respectively aggrieved by the same Order as it is their case that they were also bidders for the assets of the said Company and there were procedural infirmities in the bid, which call for interference in the present appeals.