SUKHCHAIN SINGH Vs. BHARAT COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of Company Appeal No. 7 of 2009 and Company Appeal No. 8 of 2009.

(2.) Before we proceed to consider the appeals in question, be it noted that M/s. Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd., was a company declared to be a sick company by the BIFR and on April 12, 2004, a reference was made by the BIFR regarding winding up of this company to the company court. On July 11, 2005, an order was passed by the learned company judge directing winding up of M/s. Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the company in liquidation").

(3.) From the list of dates and events submitted by learned counsel for respondent No. 3 it appears that from August-September, 2006, efforts were being made by the official liquidator (OL) under the control of the company court to dispose of the assets of the company in liquidation by issuing public notices inviting tenders in various newspapers, both at the National and State level having circulation, especially in the State of Punjab, State of Madhya Pradesh and published from all major metro cities of the country. As placed on record on Feb. 25, 2008, a public notice was issued by the official liquidator pursuant to which on May 8, 2008, respondent No. 3 submitted its tender and deposited earnest money of Rs. 6 crores with the official liquidator. On May 28, 2008 the official liquidator filed O. L. R. No. 28 of 2008 intimating that for lot Nos. 1 and 2 highest bid from respondent No. 3 for a total sum of Rs. 15 crores for lot No. 1 and Rs. 10 crores for lot No. 2 were received. It appears that on June 23, 2008, one M/s. SPA Infrastructure P. Ltd., filed I. A. No. 6229 of 2008 seeking intervention to participate in the negotiations. On Aug. 11, 2008, the company court allowed the said application and directed the said intervener to participate in the negotiations and directed the sale committee to complete the process within one month. It appears that negotiations took place between respondent No. 3 and the said SPA Infrastructure P. Ltd., and the said intervener was thrown out of the negotiations by outweighing his bid. On Sept. 12, 2008, O. L. R. No. 50 of 1998 was submitted by the official liquidator informing the company court that respondent No. 3 is the only successful and highest bidder left in the fray.