LAWS(ALL)-2011-4-20

BIFR Vs. JYOTI EXTRACTIONS P LTD

Decided On April 19, 2011
B.I.F.R. Appellant
V/S
JYOTI EXTRACTIONS (P) LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issue notice to Shri B.K.L. Srivastava, Deputy Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs (the then Official Liquidator) by speed post along with a copy of this order in order to enable him to explain the following by means of an affidavit before the Court: On 12.05.2008 an application on behalf of Abhilasha Gupta, under Rule 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, was served upon the counsel for the official liquidator as is clear from the endorsement made on the copy of the application. On the same day a copy was also served upon Gopal Mishra, counsel for the purchaser. The application in fact was presented before the Court:

(2.) on 14.05.2008. The proceedings for settling the sale of the property of the Company took place before the Company Court on 13.05.2008. On the relevant date an issue was raised as to whether the plant and machinery as mentioned in the auction notice would include the feeding plant, machinery, platform, shade and cover etc. or not (herein after referred to as the 'properties'). It is in respect of these properties that an offer of Rs. 7.5 lakhs was made in the Application No. 11516 filed by Abhilasha Gupta. On 13.05.2008, the Company Court permitted the official liquidator and the purchaser represented by Gopal Mishra, Advocate to enter into a private negotiation within the Court premises for the aforesaid property. The purchaser agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 3.5 lakh for the property in addition to the bid already offered for the remaining part of the industry. With the intervention of the Court, this amount was enhanced to Rs. 4 lakhs. The sum of Rs. 4 lakhs in fact was deposited by the purchaser on 13.05.2008 itself through a cheque and the auction was closed. Subsequently a report was submitted by the official liquidator stating therein that he entered into a private negotiation after the Court proceedings with the purchaser of the property and could solicit from him an additional sum of Rs. 1.5 lakh. On that basis it was contended that the value fetched by the property was now Rs. 5.5 lakh, therefore, the offer of Abhilasha Gupta of Rs. 7.5 lakhs was of not much relevance.

(3.) A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the Regional Director before the Court today and it has been stated that such procedure of private negotiation after the sale was confirmed by the Court is not known to law.