Santosh Hegde, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The High Court by the impugned order while allowing the appeal filed by the appellant herein remanded the matter back to the Company Judge by setting aside the sale confirmed in favour of the first respondent for sale of the assets of the Company in liquidation by initiating proceedings afresh. In this appeal, the appellant contends that its offer of Rs. 4.25 crores which was the highest and above the valuation price fixed for sale of the companys properties ought to have been accepted instead of remanding the matter to the Company Judge. In the connected appeal the first respondent has challenged the order of the High Court on the ground that its offer was the best offer, when accepted, hence, there was no reason why the Appellate Bench ought to have cancelled the confirmation made in its favour.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The Company in question was wound up as far back as on 28-2-1986 when its assets were valued at Rs. 7.50 crores (approx.). Since the property in question could not be sold, the property was revalued on 19-11-2001 at Rs. 4.16 crores (approx). When the property was put to sale for the last time, the first respondent in this appeal offered Rs. 3 crores which is far less than the value fixed by the official valuers. However, the sale was confirmed on 7-12-2001 but the Appellate Bench on 21-12-2001 set aside the said sale among other things, coming to the conclusion that the amount offered by the first respondent being very much on the lower side, under Clause 11 of the terms and conditions of sale, it had the jurisdiction to set aside the confirmation of the sale made earlier. While doing so the Court did not take into consideration the offer made by the appellant herein which was for a sum of Rs. 4.25 crores. The contention on behalf of the appellant in this case is that the value of the property is diminishing day by day and by directing a fresh sale all over again, it would not benefit the creditors of the company in any manner, therefore, the offer made by it ought to have been accepted by the High Court. We have also considered the arguments addressed in opposition by the first respondent herein. It is necessary to note herein that when the matter had come up for further orders on earlier dates starting from 11-11-2002, noticing the fact that the value of the property was diminishing, we called upon the parties to offer their bids in this Court so that the matter could be settled once for all without further delay so as to safeguard the interests of the creditors to the extent possible. Though this matter was adjourned from time to time, expecting the respondent to make a better bid than what was made by the appellant, we are informed today that the said respondent is not willing to make any higher bid. On the contrary, he wanted to question the judgment of the High Court which has cancelled the confirmation of sale made in his favour.;