ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. - (1.) THE facts involved in the appeal would appear from the judgment and order of the Division Bench in A.P.O. No. 204 of 2011 dated August 14, 2012.
(2.) THE relevant paragraphs are quoted below: "On March 11, 1985 Rishra Steel Limited (hereinafter referred to as the company in liquidation) was incorporated. Allahabad Bank was secured creditor having charge over the current assets. Due to serious labour problem the factory unit was closed down on August 16, 1987. ARC Holding Limited (hereinafter referred to as ARC) was subsequently incorporated in June 19, 1988 to purchase ninety nine per cent shareholding in Rishra Steel Limited and the ARC became holding company of the Rishra Steel in June 1989. A creditor filed a winding up petition claiming rupees one lac ninety one thousand two hundred fifty two on June 4, 1990. The learned company Judge passed an order of winding up. Thus the assets came in possession of the official liquidator by virtue of the order of winding up. The Allahabad Bank also filed a suit for recovery of the outstanding dues. ARC filed an application for stay of the winding up proceeding by framing a scheme for revival. The workers in the meantime also entered into negotiation with one G.S Sureka for revival of the company G.S Sureka subsequently brought Sylvan Commercial Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Sylvan) as his nominee. Allahabad Bank got a decree for Rs. 3.5 crores on April 9, 1987. Subsequently ARC entered into an agreement with Allahabad Bank to pay off their dues in phases. Allahabad Bank supported the scheme framed by ARC. On May 2, 1997 Sureka got possession of the factory on a scheme of revival propounded by him despite objection being raised by Allahabad Bank. ARC as well as Allahabad Bank filed independent appeals. The Division Bench set aside the order appointing Sureka to revive the unit. Sylvan filed a Special Leave Petition that was unsuccessful. Official Liquidator again took possession. The Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Sylvan on December 5, 1997. The Official Liquidator thereafter proceeded to sell the assets upon a valuation being made. Advertisements were published. This Court decided to sell it as a going concern. ARC again filed application for stay of winding up. The learned Judge dismissed the same on December 21, 1999. In an appeal by the Allahabad Bank, the Supreme Court ultimately permitted the sale to be conducted as a going concern. ARC again tried to revive the company by entering into an understanding with Allahabad Bank to pay off their dues by phases. ARC subsequently came to know that Allahabad Bank assigned its debts to Calcutta Securities Private Limited who in turn assigned the same to Deccan Traders Private Limited on the same day i.e., June 25, 2008. ARC immediately filed a suit as against Allahabad Bank challenging the assignment. Such suit is pending and awaiting its disposal. There had been litigations with regard to beneficial winding up. Ultimately the property was sold on 'as is where is' basis at Rupees twenty six crores to M/s. Gourinandan Private Limited, who deposited Rs.6.5 crores as earnest money and failed to deposit the balance sum. Gourinandan asked for a clarification before the learned Judge coupled with a prayer for extension of time to pay off the balance. According to Gourinandan, the land on which the factory would situate, was covered under a proceeding initiated under the Estate Acquisition Act. The Official Liquidator and/or the State should clarify that the property belonged to the company in liquidation free from encumbrance. His Lordship directed notice to be given to the State to appear before him and ultimately dismissed the application of Gourinandan by observing that the order of sale would require no further clarification. Pertaining to note, the query of the similar nature was earlier made by few intending bidders before His Lordship when His Lordship made it clear that the property was being sold "as is where is" basis". From the facts it would appear, Official Liquidator already sold the assets of the company (in liquidation) to M/s. Gourinandan Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. at and for a sum of Rs.26 crores. Gourinandan could deposit Rs.6.5 crores and failed to deposit the balance sum. Learned Single Judge did not extend the time. There were altogether five appeals. Two appeals arose out of an order dated April 20, 2011, filed by ARC against the order of the learned Single Judge directing sale of the assets at the instance of Sylvan as well as Deccan. Other two appeals would relate to the order dated July 15, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, confirming the sale in favour of Gourinandan. The fifth appeal was filed by Gourinandan against the order of refusal to extend the time to make balance payment. Pertinent to note, the leaned Judge directed forfeiture of the amount as Gourinandan failed to pay the balance sum.
(3.) WE heard all the five appeals analogously. We affirmed the sale in favour of Gourinandan however, in view of failure on the part of Gourinandan to pay the balance sum, we affirmed the order of forfeiture. We dismissed all the appeals.;