CL: Attempt made by court to ensure sale of property for adequate price not to be at expense of credibility of court auction sale
■■■
[2015] 55 taxmann.com 239 (Kerala)
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Sithara Associates
v.
Oshon Treads Ltd. (In Liquidation)
K.M JOSEPH AND K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, JJ.
CO. APPEAL NO .1 OF 2014
MARCH 19, 2014
Section 290 of the Companies Act, 2013/ Section 457 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Winding up - Powers of liquidator - Official liquidator with permission of court put assets of company in liquidation to sale - Only three tenders were received - Court directed Official Liquidator to ascertain fair value of land - Court cancelled previous sale and directed Official Liquidator to sell property afresh - Pursuant to direction of court, property was put up for sale third time - Thereafter, respondent, after eleven months filed an application offering higher amount and also undertaking to pay compensation to appellant - Court ordered fresh auction of property - Whether in absence of allegation of fraud or other vitiating circumstances, court should not have ordered sale of property for fourth time and should not have taken notice of offer made eleven months after third sale by a person who did not take part in earlier auctions and who appeared to be a fortune seeker - Held, yes - Whether though every attempt should be made by court to ensure sale of property for an adequate price, it should not to be at expense of credibility of court auction sale - Held, yes - Whether price offered by appellant as earlier bidder being adequate, sale was to be confirmed and fresh auction of assets was to be set aside - Held, yes [Paras 12 to 15]
■■■
[2015] 55 taxmann.com 239 (Kerala)
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Sithara Associates
v.
Oshon Treads Ltd. (In Liquidation)
K.M JOSEPH AND K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, JJ.
CO. APPEAL NO .1 OF 2014
MARCH 19, 2014
Section 290 of the Companies Act, 2013/ Section 457 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Winding up - Powers of liquidator - Official liquidator with permission of court put assets of company in liquidation to sale - Only three tenders were received - Court directed Official Liquidator to ascertain fair value of land - Court cancelled previous sale and directed Official Liquidator to sell property afresh - Pursuant to direction of court, property was put up for sale third time - Thereafter, respondent, after eleven months filed an application offering higher amount and also undertaking to pay compensation to appellant - Court ordered fresh auction of property - Whether in absence of allegation of fraud or other vitiating circumstances, court should not have ordered sale of property for fourth time and should not have taken notice of offer made eleven months after third sale by a person who did not take part in earlier auctions and who appeared to be a fortune seeker - Held, yes - Whether though every attempt should be made by court to ensure sale of property for an adequate price, it should not to be at expense of credibility of court auction sale - Held, yes - Whether price offered by appellant as earlier bidder being adequate, sale was to be confirmed and fresh auction of assets was to be set aside - Held, yes [Paras 12 to 15]
No comments:
Post a Comment