TRIVENI METAL TUBES LTD Vs. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The leasehold industrial land including standing trees and pucca factory building (excluding the temple area) and the old factory's steel structures of the company namely, M/s. Triveni Metal and Tubes Limited (in liquidation) were ordered to be sold by calling for tenders jointly by the Industrial Investment Bank of India (IIBI) as well as the official liquidator. After advertising the same in four newspapers, only five tenders were received within time on October 30, 1998, the date fixed by the court. One tender was submitted on the same day but beyond time. On the application of the said party, the court permitted the tender to be taken on record and be considered along with the other tenders. The aforesaid six tenders were opened in the presence of learned counsel appearing for the IIBI, IFCI and the PICUP as well as the official liquidator and the representatives of the parties who had submitted their tenders. Out of the six tenders received, the highest offer was of Rs. 1.12 crores of M/s. Umrao Steels, Kanpur. However, the parties were given an opportunity to increase their offers by bidding amongst themselves. M/s. Umrao Steels increased their offer to Rs. 1.20 crores, which was accepted as the highest bid. The minutes were recorded separately by the court. An order was also passed accepting the offer that the party which had given the highest offer shall deposit 25 per cent. of the consideration within one month and the balance amount in three monthly instalments. It is noteworthy that the said party deposited Rs. 1,11,50,000 (including the earnest money of Rs. 1,00,000 deposited on December 4, 1998) within one month on January 4, 1999, and has also deposited the balance amount of Rs. 8,50,000 on January 18, 1999.

(2.) On January 4, 1999, however, an application was filed before this court by one Manoj Kumar Mishra (Mishra in short) praying that as the auction purchaser has flouted the orders passed by this court on December 4, 1998, the order dated December 4, 1998, passed in favour of the said party be recalled and the offer now being given by the applicant Mishra of Rs. 1.40 crores be accepted. Alternatively, it was prayed that another date be fixed for calling fresh tenders regarding the property in question. A similar application (A-21) has been filed on behalf of Asif Ansari for recalling the order dated December 4, 1998, and to forfeit the earnest money of M/s. Umrao Steels and to accept the bid of Rs. 3,75,000 for lot No. 2 given by the said applicant. Counter affidavit has been filed by the official liquidator to the applications (A-20) and a rejoinder has been filed to the same.

(3.) I have heard Shri S.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant Mishra, Shri Bhola Nath Singh, advocate for Asif Ansari, Shri R.P. Agrawal, who appeared on behalf of M/s. Umrao Steels as well as the official liquidator. I have also perused the record of this case.