Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
COMA/214/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
COMPANY
APPLICATION No. 214 of 2008
In
COMPANY
APPLICATION No. 533 of 2007
In
COMPANY APPLICATION No. 138 of 2007
=========================================================
CITIZENS
CO-OP. BANK LTD. - Applicant(s)
Versus
OL
OF SAFFRON CERAMICS PVT. LTD. & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
M/S
THAKKAR ASSOC. for Applicant(s) : 1,
OFFICIAL
LIQUIDATOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR NITIN K MEHTA for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MS JAGRUTI A PARMAR for Respondent(s) :
2,
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 17/11/2008
ORAL
ORDER
The
Applicant Bank has taken out this Judge’s Summons seeking
confirmation of sale of property being Land bearing Revenue Survey
No.101/1 and 101/2 paiki admeasuring 12232 sq. mtrs. situated at
Makansar, Taluka Morbi as well as machinery in favour of the highest
bidder, i.e. Mr. Bharatkumar M. Dhoriyani, the respondent no.2
herein for Rs.1,65,00,000/=.
An
affidavit is filed by Mr. Ramesh Gamot in support of Judge’s
Summons. Mr. N.K. Pahwa, the learned advocate appearing for the
applicant has submitted that the Applicant Bank has exclusive charge
by way of mortgage in respect of the property being immovable
property covered by factory building, its machineries including land
bearing Revenue Survey No.101/1 and 101/2 paiki admeasuring 12232
sq. mtrs. situated at Makansar, Taluka Morbi. It is submitted that
as the Company in liquidation committed default in payment of dues
of the applicant bank, the applicant bank initiated proceedings
under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. He further submitted
that under due procedure of the Act, the applicant bank took over
possession of the said property on 16.10.2006. By an Order dated
14.12.2006, this Court in Company Petition No.5/2006 has wound up
the Company in liquidation and the Official Liquidator attached to
this Court has been appointed as the Liquidator of the Company in
liquidation. The OJ Appeal filed against the said order of the
Learned Single Judge was also dismissed by the Division Bench of
this Court. He further submitted that earlier the Applicant bank
has moved Company Application No.533/2007 seeking to participate in
the auction proceedings alongwith other bidders. This Court vide
its Order dated 13.12.2007 permitted the Applicant Bank to
participate in the auction. However the said participation would
not amount to confirmation of sale in favour of the Bank. He has
further submitted that as per the Order of this Court,
advertisements were issued in the newspapers ?SPhool Chhab?? and
?SIndian Express?? fixing the upset price of the property at
Rs.1.90 Crores. Thereafter the applicant Bank has filed another
Company Application No.99/2008 requesting this Court to fix the
upset price at Rs.1,63,11,000/=. Advertisements were issued
pursuant to the Order of this Court. Offer was received from
Respondent No.2, Mr. Bharatkumar M. Dhoriyani for Rs.1.65 Crores.
Initially
this Court has issued Notice on 27.03.2008. Thereafter several
orders were passed from time to time. During the pendency of this
application, one Mr. S.P. Multani wrote a letter to the Official
Liquidator and made an offer of Rs.2 Crores. The Court has directed
him to deposit the amount of Rs.20 Lacs. However he did not turn up
thereafter. A fax message dated 17.11.2008 is received from Mr.
S.P. Multani stating that it is not possible to purchase the said
property looking to the present market condition and he expressed
his intention to purchase the said property at 50% of his initial
offer.
In
the above view of the matter, it appears that the offer made by the
present respondent no.2 is just and proper. Despite repeated
advertisement, no higher offer has been received. The Court
therefore, accepts the offer made by respondent no.2 and confirms
the sale of the property in question in favour of respondent no.2,
subject to the terms and conditions set out in the Tender document.
Until
full and final payment is received, the possession of the property
will remain with the Official Liquidator. After that, final Sale
Deed shall be executed in favour of respondent no.2 At the time of
execution of Sale Deed, the original documents like Title of the
property should be handed over to respondent no.2. The amount of
the sale consideration should be kept in a separate account and the
said amount should be disbursed as per the Order of this Court. The
Respondent no.2 is permitted to appoint one nominee of his choice,
if he so desires.
Subject
to the aforesaid directions and observations, this Company
Application is accordingly disposed off.
(K.A.
Puj, J.)
Caroline
Top