- (1.) In these admiralty suits the vessel sued is M.V. Vsevolod Beletskiy. It was arrested and came to be ordered for sale through Special Officer appointed. On compliance with directions for sale, auction was held and by order dated 25th July, 2019 made in AS 11 of 2018 ( Soham Shipping Pvt. Ltd. vs. Owners and interested Parties in the Vessel M.V.Vsevolod Beletskiy), sale was confirmed and following directions made. "The sale is confirmed to highest bidder on offer recorded in said report, at Rs.24.15 crores. Special Officer shall proceed to execute the sale in terms of, inter alia, sub-regulations (10) to (13) of regulation 5 in Calcutta Port Trust (Distraint or Arrest and Sale of Vessels) Regulations, 1989, as directions made upon him by Court. On contingency provided under the regulations, regarding successful bidder not following through, the vessel will be resold. Meanwhile, earnest money deposits from unsuccessful bidders be refunded to them. Entire sale proceeds or part thereof, as obtained by earnest and part payments, if as and when made up to period, in which successful bidder can remove the vessel or have earnest deposit forfeited, will be deposited by Special Officer, at the end of said period, with Registrar, Original Side. On achieving deposit of sale value, Court will apply it against the claims, to decree on proof of them. List on 26th August, 2019. This order is made in the general applications treating them as on day's list. The applications are disposed of."
(2.) A person claiming to have memorandum of agreement for sale dated 24th April, 2019, with the owners, intervened. Demand draft dated 29th July, 2019 for Rs. 7 crores was handed up to Court and, inter alia, following said in order dated 30th July, 2019. "By reason of tender of Rs. 7 crores by said instrument and agreement disclosed with owners of the ship, Court is inclined to view applicant as an interested person who wants to buy the vessel. Court is also conscious that highest bidder participated in due process and got sale confirmed in its favour. The situation thus emerging is of two bidders for the vessel. Time schedule given to successful bidder is in place and running. List this application on 6th August, 2019 for contesting bids, if any. This adjournment will, in no way, affect highest bidder's right to purchase, in event competing bid is not received from applicant on adjourned date. The demand draft tendered by applicant be encashed by Registrar, Original Side and deposited in short term interest bearing deposit account to be opened with a nationalised bank. It is made clear, any time overrun and monetary consequences thereof, arising by reason of adjudication of this application, will be deducted from this deposit along with Registrar's commission. It is further made clear that on adjourned date, applicant must be ready to deposit difference between money already deposited and its accepted bid. Highest bidder, on the other hand, if successful, will be bound by time schedule of sale directed by order dated 25th July, 2019." (Emphasis supplied)
(3.) Here it would be convenient to set out order dated 13th August, 2019 for record of submissions made on behalf of highest bidder, opposing said applicant wanting to have the sale set aside. "Mr. Mitra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of applicant in TA 8 of 2019 / GA 6 of 2019 made in AS 11 of 2018 being item no.29 in day's list. He hands up banker's cheque dated 3rd August, 2019 for Rs.17 crores, drawn in favour of Registrar, Original Side. The cheque is handed back. Referring to record in order dated 30th July, 2019, he submits, his client has exhibited willingness and readiness to purchase the vessel. The sale should be set aside and his client allowed to bid for it. Mr. Mookherjee, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of successful bidder. He submits, his client has confirmation of sale in its favour. He relies on judgments of Supreme Court to submit, this confirmation cannot be set aside at applicant's instance. Firstly, on Valji Khimji And Company versus Official Liquidator of Hindustan Nitro Product (Gujarat) Limited reported in (2008)9 SCC 299, to paragraphs 2 to 8, 11, 12, 28 and 30. Next on Sadashiv Prasad Singh versus Harendar Singh reported in (2015)5 SCC 574, to paragraphs 17 and 19. Lastly, on Vedica Procon Private Limited versus Balleshwar Greens Private Limited reported in (2015)10 SCC 94, to paragraphs 37 to 40, 47 and 51. Referring to paragraphs 3 and 5 in the application he submits, it does not disclose any element of fraud or collusion that can be relied upon to set aside the sale. He submits, in seeking to assert a right under purported agreement with owners of the vessel, only his client's accepted bid has been matched. The agreement discloses agreed consideration for the vessel to be USD, 50,25,000/- . ;