High Court Kerala High Court

V.H. Aboo vs M/S. Elcera Substrates Limited on 26 November, 2009

Kerala High Court
V.H. Aboo vs M/S. Elcera Substrates Limited on 26 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Co.Appeal.No. 26 of 2009()


1. V.H. ABOO, S/O. HUSSAIN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M/S. ELCERA SUBSTRATES LIMITED
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIES

3. HANEEFA.P,

4. HARVEST INDUSTRIES,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :26/11/2009

 O R D E R
          P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

                    -------------------------------

                    Co. Appeal No.26 of 2009

                    -------------------------------

               Dated this the 26th November, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

Raman, J.

Appellant submitted his offer pursuant to the tender

invited. Though his original offer was Rs.88 lakhs, he has

enhanced the same from Rs.88 lakhs to Rs.92,52,000/-. There

was yet another tenderer who also increased his offer from

Rs.1,00,01,000/- to Rs.1,05,01,000/-. Thus, only two tenders

with increased offer came up for consideration. Considering the

assets of the Company, the learned Company Judge thought that

the revised offers received were not satisfactory, and therefore,

he was not inclined to confirm the sale in favour of either of the

applicants at that stage, and directed the Official Liquidator to

invite fresh bids from the general public. Contending that he is

not interested in making any offer pursuant to the new

advertisement, he sought for return of his EMD deposit. The

learned Company Judge felt that it will not be proper at that

Co.Appeal No.26 of 2009

2

stage to pass such an order and adjourned the case to be posted

after a week. Thus, the Company Judge has not declined to

return the security deposit, but only deferred the request to be

considered on a later stage. No error of Law arise from such an

order. It is only when the request for withdrawal of the security

deposit, if ultimately, is dismissed, that would arise a cause for

any grievance. At any rate, the discretion having been exercised

properly, we do not find any reason to interfere in this appeal, at

this stage. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

nj.