- (1.) The appellants have been playing games and indulging in a kite-flying exercise for a considerable period of time. By the last order of September 8, 2017, the appellants were required to put the official liquidator in funds for the official liquidator to publish advertisements for sale of the assets covered by the order impugned. However, no payment has been made and the appellants suggest that the sum of Rs.22 lakh as advertisement costs demanded by the official liquidator is exorbitant.
(2.) The previous order of September 8, 2017 records the facts and the circumstances in which it was decided that the assets sold by the order impugned would be required to be sold afresh. It may only be noticed that the respondent no.4 purchaser has paid a total amount of Rs.12 crore for both the land and the structures and movables thereon at Kankinara. The most remarkable feature of the order impugned is that the valuation of the assets are not indicated therein. It is elementary that an offer is accepted with reference to the valuation of the property; or, if the offers in Court do not meet the valuation, reasons are indicated for accepting the highest offer below the valuation. Ordinarily, such reasons are the long delay in the sale and no better offer coming despite repeated advertisements. The order impugned in this case does not cover such aspect of the matter.
(3.) The land was valued at Rs.18,51,30,000/- (distress value) and Rs.29,62,07,146/- (market value). The distress value of the structures was indicated in the valuation report to be Rs.1,23,34,000/- and the market value thereof Rs.1,97,34,349/-. The market value of the other movables was indicated in the same valuation report to be Rs.4,27,92,000/-.;