MANOJ RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. M V PRO TRADER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 23.07.2015, the Court Commissioner appointed by this Court has initiated process of auction of defendant vessel. In pursuance to the same, the advertisement was issued in the concerned newspapers and the Court Commissioner received nine bids, whereas, two bidders have remained present before this Court at the time of inter­se bidding. However, out of 11 bidders, 10 bidders are not interested looking to the offer given by one of the bidders and therefore the drafts of EMD given by the other 10 bidders are required to be returned to the concerned bidders. Court Commissioner is directed to return the amount of EMD to other 10 bidders except Aqua Holic Inc.

(2.) Aqua Holic Inc. has offered US$ 5,007,000 equivalent to Rs.32,69,00,000/­. However, the said party has raised its offer upto US$ 5,057,000 equivalent to Rs.33,02,22,100/­. Learned advocate for the plaintiff as well as caveators and the learned advocate appearing for National Bank of Greece have jointly submitted that if the offer given by Aqua Holic Inc. is accepted, they are having no objection.

(3.) Learned advocate appearing for National Bank of Greece has pointed from the record that the valuation obtained by the said Bank from the concerned valuer suggests the market price of the defendant vessel is US$ 5,250,000. At this stage, it is clarified that as per the valuation report received by the Court Commissioner, market price of the defendant vessel is much more than the offer given by the intending purchaser Aqua Holic Inc. However, learned advocate Mr.Arjun Mittal appearing on behalf of Aqua Holic Inc. referred and relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Kayjay Industries (P) Ltd. v. M/s. Asnew Drums (P) Ltd. and Others, reported in 1974 (2) SCC 213 and more particularly referred paragraph No.7 of the said decision, which reads as under: