SHYAM SHANKAR TIWARI,J. - (1.) HEARD Shri U.N. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, and Shri B.C. Rai, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Ashok Bhalla has appeared for respondent No. 2 and Shri Anurag Khanna appearing for newly impleaded respondent Nos.4.
(2.) THIS special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.5.2008 passed by the Company Judge in Misc. Company Application No. 2 of 1998 M/s. Mahendra Steel Tubes Ltd rejecting the application No. 53878 of 2008, by which application was filed for recalling the earlier order of learned Company Judge dated 20.12.2006. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding the issue raised in the appeal are :-
(3.) M /s. Mahendra Steel Tubes Ltd., the Company in liquidation was wound up by order dated 21.7.2001. The plant and machinery of the company was sold. Earlier, the reserved price of land and building of the Company was fixed at Rs.26.87 lakhs. Advertisement was issued in response to which bids of not more than 20 lakhs were received, by an order dated 8.11.2006 of the Company Judge, the Official Liquidator was required to re-advertise the properties at reserve price of Rs.20 lakhs. The properties were again re-advertised in 'Dainik Jagran' a Hindi daily published from Delhi 'Amar Ujala', a Hindi published from Meerut 'Shah Times,' Hindi daily newspaper published from Muzzafarnagar, Economic Times and Hindustan Times published from New Delhi. 16 offers were received by the Official Liquidators, two more were received in chambers. The respondent No. 2 gave highest bid of Rs. 51 lakhs after competitive bidding. The Learned Company Judge by order dated 20.12.2006 accepted highest bid of respondent No. 2, being the highest bidder. An application was moved by the appellant on 14.2.2008 before the learned Company Judge praying for recall of the order dated 20.12.2006. In an affidavit filed by the appellant it was stated that applicant was ready and willing to offer a sum of Rs.65 lakhs. It was submitted that the property in question has been under valued and the price is inadequate. It was further stated that amount was not deposited within the time allowed by this Court. The said application was heard by learned Company Judge and was rejected by an order dated 6.5.2008. The learned Company Judge took the view that properties were put to auction after due advertisement in newspapers and if the applicant was sleeping over, he cannot be permitted to come forward and get the matter re-opened only on the ground that he is prepared to give a higher bid .;