BHARAT SCRAP Vs. HARYANA AND STEEL CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful 1st respondent in C.A.NO. 1035/2002 in C.A.No. 886/2002 in C.P.No. 14/87, aggrieved by the order dated 13-6-2003 made by the Company Court disposing of the Company Application with certain directions, had preferred the present Original Suit Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent r/w Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as "Act" in short.

(2.) The 1st respondent in the present Appeal filed C.A.No. 1035/2002 in C.P. No. 14/87 in the matter of M/s. Krishi Engines Limited (in liquidation) praying for setting aside of the order dated 9-12-2002 passed in C.A.No. 886/2002 in C.P. No. 14/87 and for such other suitable orders. The Company Court by the order dated 13-6-2003 had disposed of the said application and the operative portion of the said order reads as hereunder:

(3.) Sri S.R. Ashok, the learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant with all vehemence had submitted that the impugned order of the Company Court cannot be sustained for the reason that when once the delay in payment of the amount was condoned by the Court, another learned Judge cannot sit over the order of extension made in C.A.No. 886/2002 which will amount to reviewing the order. The learned Counsel also submitted that while getting an order of extension of time for making payment of the amount, the Company, Court was apprised of all the facts and circumstances except the offer made by the 1st respondent/applicant dated 12-12-2002. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that the 1st respondent also had withdrawn the E.M.D. on 13-9-2002 and in the light of the order made in C.A.No. 886/2002, the subsequent directions issued by the Company Court in C.A.No. 1035/2002 cannot be sustained. The learned Senior Counsel had taken us through the order passed by the learned Judge in C.A. No. 886/2002 and also the impugned order passed by another learned Judge in C.A. No. 1035/2002. The learned Counsel while further elaborating his submissions maintained that even if the said offer subsequently made by the 1st respondent has to be taken into consideration and such increased bid is to be reckoned which in fact is negligible increase, there would be no finality at all in public auctions. The learned Counsel also had submitted that in the absence of any illegality or impropriety, muchless, irregularity in the conduct of auction by the Official Liquidator, the public auction held in accordance with law cannot be set at naught on such a flimsy ground. The learned Counsel also pointed out when once the learned Judge after due application of mind had confirmed the auction, nullification of such sale by another learned Judge would amount to sitting in Judgment over the Judgment of another learned Judge. The learned Counsel also had placed strong reliance on Harjeet Singh v. State of Punjab in this regard. The learned Senior Counsel would further maintain that the secured creditor himself had no objection to the bid made by the appellant and in such a case, the mere offer of 2% more by the rival participant after a lapse of one month cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that the decisions cited had not been properly appreciated by the Company Court while making the impugned order.