{"id":35275,"date":"2011-04-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011"},"modified":"2017-12-28T07:08:11","modified_gmt":"2017-12-28T01:38:11","slug":"o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"O.L.Of vs M.A.Narmawala on 18 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
O.L.Of vs M.A.Narmawala on 18 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nOLR\/68\/2005\t 23\/ 23\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nOFFICIAL\nLIQUDATOR REPORT No. 68 of 2005\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nCOMPANY\nPETITION No. 205 of 1996\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\n \n \n===================================================== \n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=====================================================\n \n\nO.L.OF\nG.S.T.C.LTD., UNIT MONOGRAM MILL. - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nM.A.NARMAWALA,\nDY. SECRETARY (TEXTILE) & 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=====================================================Appearance\n:  \nOFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR for\nPetitioner No(s).: 1.\n \n\nNone\nfor Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. \nMR SN SOPARKAR, Senior\nAdvocate WITH MRS SWATI SOPARKAR for M\/s. Mahakali Scrap\nTraders. \n=====================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 23\/08\/2005  \n \nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
The
\n\tOfficial Liquidator has filed this report seeking certain directions
\n\twhich inter alia, include confirmation or otherwise of the offer of
\n\tM\/s. Mahakali Scrap Traders of Rs. 4.31 Crores being the highest
\n\tbidder for building structure except T.K. Office, Account Office,
\n\tCredit Society Office, Office Records, Compound Wall, Trees and land
\n\ton the terms and conditions of sale.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tOfficial Liquidator has submitted in his report that he has informed
\n\tto the members and offerers present before the announcement of the
\n\tauction that the auction was for building \/ structure only except
\n\tT.K. Office, Account Office, Credit Society Office, Office Records,
\n\tCompound Wall, Trees and not for land as was inadvertently stated in
\n\tthe top portion of the advertisement.  The Sale Committee started
\n\tauction proceedings.  The highest offer received as per Tender was
\n\tRs. 2.97 Crores from M\/s. Mahakali Scrap Traders.  Thereafter, the
\n\tinter-se bidding was taken place amongst the bidders and at the
\n\tclose of the auction, three highest offers were found by the
\n\tOfficial Liquidator which are as under :-\n<\/p>\n
M\/s.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tMahakali Scrap Traders\t\tRs. 4,31,00,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
M\/s.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tV.L. Intex\t\t\t\tRs. 4,26,00,000\/-\n\t\t \n\nM\/s.\n\t\tKhemaji & Jodhaji Bros.\tRs. 4,21,00,000\/-\n\t\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\t  \n\nThe\n<\/pre>\n
\tOfficial Liquidator has further stated that subsequently, one
\n\tofferer, namely, M\/s. Virasat Reality Pvt. Ltd. has also requested
\n\tto retain its EMD and he sent letter on 31.03.2005 offering
\n\tRs.4,31,00,000\/-.  However, vide his letter dated 09.05.2005, he has
\n\trequested the Official Liquidator to return the EMD of Rs. 15 Lacs.\n<\/p>\n
Based
\n\ton the aforesaid report, this Court has issued notice on 17.06.2005
\n\tdirecting the Official Liquidator to intimate to all the bidders who
\n\thave participated in the auction before the Sale Committee and also
\n\tto the intending purchasers who want to participate in the inter-se
\n\tbidding before the Court on 06.07.2005.  The Official Liquidator was
\n\tfurther directed to inform the intending purchasers that if they
\n\twant to participate in the inter-se bidding, they have to pay EMD to
\n\tthe Official Liquidator along with late entry charges @ 18% p.a. and
\n\tit should be made clear that late entry charges are not refundable
\n\tin case they may not turn out to be the highest bidder.  The Court
\n\thas also directed the office to place Company Application No. 133 of
\n\t2005 along with this report.  The said Company Application was moved
\n\tby M\/s. Mahakali Scrap Traders, the highest bidder for confirmation
\n\tof sale in its favour.\n<\/p>\n
Pursuant
\n\tto the notice issued by this Court on 17.06.2005 and pursuant to the
\n\tintimation sent by the Official Liquidator, no bidders have remained
\n\tpresent on 06.07.2005 or even thereafter.  The Court was, therefore,
\n\tinclined to confirm the sale in favour of the highest bidder,
\n\tnamely, M\/s. Mahakali Scrap Traders.  On 06.07.2005, this Court has
\n\tpassed an order permitting the highest bidder, namely, M\/s. Mahakali
\n\tScrap Traders to withdraw Company Application No. 133 of 2005 as the
\n\tapplicant had no more interest in keeping its offer alive.  The
\n\tCourt has, however, clearly observed that the issue with regard to
\n\treturn of EMD would be decided in O.L.R. No. 68 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.\n<\/p>\n
\tS.N. Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel with Mrs. Swati Soparkar,
\n\tlearned advocate appearing for M\/s. Mahakali Scrap Traders has
\n\tsubmitted that since considerable time has elapsed and the highest
\n\tbidder has already invested its fund elsewhere, the highest bidder
\n\tis not interested in continuing its offer and it has already
\n\twithdrawn Company Application No. 133 of 2005.  In this view of the
\n\tmatter, the EMD which was paid should be refunded to him.  He has
\n\tfurther submitted that there is no valid contract between the
\n\thighest bidder and the Official Liquidator to this effect and even
\n\tif this is considered to be a valid contract, the Official
\n\tLiquidator has no right to forfeit the amount of EMD as there is
\n\tsettled position in law and also statutory provisions under Section
\n\t5 of the Contract Act that it is always open for the offerer to
\n\twithdraw its offer before it is accepted and once the offer is
\n\twithdrawn, the EMD paid by the offerer is required to be refunded.
\n\tHe has submitted that Section 5 of the Contract Act deals with
\n\trevocation of proposals and acceptance.  The offerer can withdraw
\n\tits offer before communication of the acceptance is complete against
\n\tit.  The Official Liquidator by merely providing clause to the
\n\tcontrary in the tender document cannot take away the legal rights of
\n\tthe offerer. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the
\n\tdecision of Madras High Court in the case of  Somasundaram
\n\tPillai V\/s. Provincial Government of Madras, A.I.R. (34) 1947 MADRAS
\n\t366 wherein the Court has taken the view that to have an
\n\tenforceable contract there must be an offer and an unconditional
\n\tacceptance.  A person who makes an offer has the right of
\n\twithdrawing it before acceptance, in the absence of a condition to
\n\tthe contrary supported by consideration.  The fact that there has
\n\tbeen a provisional acceptance makes no difference.  A provisional
\n\tacceptance cannot in itself make a binding contract.  There must be
\n\ta definite acceptance or the fulfillment of the condition on which a
\n\tprovisional acceptance is based. The Court has further held that at
\n\tan auction-sale of liquor shop licenses held in accordance with the
\n\tconditions of sale prescribed by the Board of Revenue the
\n\tplaintiff’s bid was provisionally accepted by the selling officer.
\n\tThe final acceptance rested with the Collector under the conditions
\n\tof sale.  The conditions stipulated that no bid which had been
\n\tprovisionally accepted should be withdrawn before it lapsed on a
\n\thigher bid being accepted or before orders were passed confirming or
\n\trefusing to confirm it.  The Court has held that the conditions of
\n\tsale were not settled by the Board of Revenue under any particular
\n\tprovision of the Madras Abkari Act and their publication did not
\n\tamount to a notification under S. 69 of that Act and had therefore
\n\tno statutory force.  The Court has further held that the plaintiff
\n\twas entitled to withdraw the bid because the prohibition against
\n\twithdrawal had not the force of law and there was no consideration
\n\tto bind him down to the condition.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.\n<\/p>\n
\tSoparkar has further relied on the decision of Madras High Court in
\n\tthe case of  T. Linga Gowder V\/s. The State of Madras, A.I.R.
\n\t1971 MADRAS 28 wherein it is held that when there is no
\n\tcompleted contract between the plaintiff and the Government, no
\n\tfurther question can arise.  Section 66 of the Madras Forest Act
\n\tenables the Government to recover the money due to the Government as
\n\tif it were arrear of land revenue.  The Court found in that case
\n\tthat the money claimed by the Government did not fall under any of
\n\tthe heads provided for under Section 66.  To start with, there was
\n\tno enforceable contract for a breach to occur.  Secondly, the
\n\tCourt’s attention has not been drawn to any statutory rule under the
\n\tAct whereunder the money could be claimed by the Government, the
\n\tconditions of the auction sale having no statutory force.  It was
\n\tnot claimed that any statutory rules having the force of law have
\n\tbeen made in this regard.  Under Section 52 of the Revenue Recovery
\n\tAct all sums due to the Government, including compensation for any
\n\tloss or damage sustained by them in consequence of a breach of
\n\tcontract, may be recovered in the same manner as arrears of land
\n\trevenue under the provisions of the Act, unless recovery thereof has
\n\totherwise been specially provided for.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.\n<\/p>\n
\tSoparkar has further relied on the decision of Madhya Pradesh High
\n\tCourt in the case of  Rajendra Kumar Verma V\/s. State of Madhya
\n\tPradesh and others, AIR 1972 MADHYA PRADESH 131 where, in
\n\tpursuance of tender notice for the sale of Tendu Patta (Leaves) the
\n\tpetitioner had given his tender but had withdrawn it before it was
\n\topened and accepted. It is held that when the tenders were opened
\n\tthere was no offer from the petitioner and, therefore, there could
\n\tbe no contract either express or implied between the parties.  It is
\n\tfurther held that the Government by merely providing a clause in the
\n\ttender notice imposing condition on the exercise of the right to
\n\twithdraw the offer could not take away that legal right of the
\n\tpetitioner.\n<\/p>\n
Lastly,
\n\tMr. Soparkar has relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in
\n\tthe case of M\/s.  Suraj Besan and Rice Mills V\/s. Food
\n\tCorporation of India, AIR 1988 DELHI 224 wherein it is held
\n\tthat a person can withdraw or modify his offer or tender before
\n\tcommunication of the acceptance is complete as against him, that is,
\n\tbefore its acceptance is intimated to him.  The Government by merely
\n\tproviding a clause to the contrary in the tender notice could not
\n\ttake away the legal rights of a person.\n<\/p>\n
Based
\n\ton the aforesaid decisions and the statutory provisions, Mr.
\n\tSoparkar has submitted that the EMD which is lying with the Official
\n\tLiquidator should be returned to the highest bidder forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tagainst the aforesaid submissions, the Official Liquidator has
\n\tinvited the Court’s attention to Condition No. 7 & 32 of the
\n\tTender document. Condition No. 7 empowers the sale Committee to
\n\taccept the highest or any offer, subject to the sanction and
\n\tconfirmation of this Court.  This condition further empowers the
\n\tSale Committee to reject any or all offers without assigning any
\n\treasons thereof, subject to the permission of this Court.  It
\n\tfurther stipulates that the decision of the High Court shall be
\n\tbinding on the parties. Condition No. 32 makes it abundantly clear
\n\tthat the offerer shall not be entitled to withdraw or cancel his
\n\toffer once submitted.  It also talks about the consequences if the
\n\toffer is withdrawn or cancelled.  In case
\n\tof withdrawal or cancellation of offer, not only the earnest money
\n\tdeposit shall be liable to be forfeited, but the offerer will also
\n\tbe liable to pay the Official Liquidator the loss or damage suffered
\n\tconsequent upon his backing out of the offer.  It further stipulates
\n\tthat the said property \/ assets will then be re-sold at the risk and
\n\tconsequences of the offerer.  The Official Liquidator has,
\n\ttherefore, submitted that on withdrawal of the offer by the highest
\n\tbidder and that too, after its acceptance by the Sale Committee, the
\n\tearnest money deposit paid by it is liable to be forfeited and it
\n\tshall also be held to be liable for any loss or damage that may be
\n\tcaused to him on re-sale of the said property \/ asset.  In support
\n\tof his submission, the Official Liquidator has relied on the
\n\tdecision of this Court in the case of O.L. Of New Jhangir Textile
\n\tMills (Unit of GSTC Ltd.) V\/s. M.A. Narmawala & Ors., being
\n\tO.L.R. No. 25 of 2003 in Company Application No. 47 of 2003 decided
\n\ton 31.07.2003, wherein, on withdrawal of the offer by the successful
\n\tbidder before the Sale Committee, the Court held that the earnest
\n\tmoney deposit made by the offerer shall be liable to be forfeited.\n<\/p>\n
After
\n\thaving heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.N. Soparkar appearing
\n\tfor the applicant and the Official Liquidator and after having
\n\tperused their respective pleadings, relevant statutory provisions
\n\tand authorities cited before the Court, it is the considered opinion
\n\tof the Court that the highest bidder before the Sale Committee is
\n\tnot entitled to claim refund of earnest money deposit.  The Court
\n\thas examined the Conditions No. 7 & 32 of the Tender document.
\n\tThe highest bidder has participated in the inter-se bidding before
\n\tthe Sale Committee.  Its bid was accepted subject to confirmation by
\n\tthe Court.  The said acceptance was communicated at the conclusion
\n\tof the Sale Committee meeting i.e. On 24.03.2005.  The highest
\n\tbidder’s offer was of Rs. 4,31,00,000\/- whereas the  offers of other
\n\ttwo bidders, namely, M\/s. V.L. Intex and
\n\tM\/s. Khemaji & Jodhaji Bros. were to the tune of Rs.
\n\t4,26,00,000\/- and Rs. 4,21,00,000\/- respectively.  As a result of
\n\tacceptance of the offer of the highest bidder, the earnest money
\n\tdeposit of other bidders were returned.  The sale was required to be
\n\tconfirmed by the Court.  The highest bidder has filed Company
\n\tApplication No. 133 of 2005 before this Court for confirmation of
\n\tsaid sale in its favour.  The Official Liquidator has also filed the
\n\tpresent report on 15.06.2005.  The Court issued notice therein
\n\tmaking it returnable on 06.07.2005 and it was directed to be placed
\n\talong with Company Application No. 133 of 2005.  On the returnable
\n\tdate i.e. 06.07.2005, the highest bidder sought the permission to
\n\twithdraw the application as it did not want to keep its offer alive.
\n\t The period of 3 to 4 months cannot be said to have any attributes
\n\tof delay or latches.  The Court is, therefore, not convinced with
\n\tthe submission of Mr. Soparkar that there was unreasonable delay in
\n\tgranting sanction or confirmation of sale in favour of the highest
\n\tbidder.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tfar as withdrawal of the offer by the highest bidder is concerned,
\n\tthere is no much dispute about the offerer’s right to withdraw his
\n\toffer before its acceptance being communicated to him.  However,
\n\tconsequences flowing from such withdrawal or cancellation of offer
\n\tdepend upon the facts of each case.  Authorities cited by Mr.
\n\tSoparkar deal with the cases where conditions imposed in the Tender
\n\tdocument were held to be without statutory force or without any
\n\tconsideration.  In the present case, Condition No. 30 specifically
\n\tstates that this Court has right to impose such other and further
\n\tterms and conditions as this Court may deem fit and proper in the
\n\tcircumstances of the case may arise and the terms and conditions
\n\talready specified in the Tender document will be binding on all the
\n\tparties concerned.  These conditions are having the statutory force.
\n\t Rules 272 to 274 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 deal with
\n\tsales by the Official Liquidator.  Rule 272 puts an embargo and
\n\tmandates that unless the Court otherwise
\n\torders, no property belonging to Company which is being wound up by
\n\tthe Court shall be sold by the Official Liquidator, without the
\n\tprevious sanction of the Court, and every sale shall be subject to
\n\tconfirmation by the Court.  Rule 273 prescribes the procedure at
\n\tsale.  It states that every sale shall be held by Official
\n\tLiquidator, subject to such terms and conditions as may be approved
\n\tby the Court.  Thus, the condition regarding forfeiture of earnest
\n\tmoney deposit, on withdrawal of the offer by the highest bidder in
\n\tthe present case, that too, at the stage when the matter is pending
\n\tbefore the Court for confirmation of sale, cannot be considered to
\n\tbe without any statutory force.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tcondition regarding forfeiture of earnest money deposit in the
\n\tpresent case, cannot be treated as without any consideration.  The
\n\thighest bidder has got an exclusive right of consideration of its
\n\toffer by the Court, in exclusion of other bidders who were before
\n\tthe Sale Committee.  Even if other bidders may intervene and may
\n\ttake part in inter-se bidding before the Court, pursuant to the
\n\tnotice issued by the Court, but in that case, they are liable to pay
\n\tlate entry charges @ 18% p.a. for the period from the date of
\n\tinviting the offers by the Official Liquidator till they make the
\n\toffer before the Court and pay earnest money deposit.  The highest
\n\tbidder whose earnest money deposit is retained by the Official
\n\tLiquidator is not supposed to pay these late entry charges.  If any
\n\tother bidder raises his bid before the Court and ultimately, the
\n\tCourt confirms the sale in favour        of such other bidder, the
\n\thighest bidder before the Sale Committee will certainly get his
\n\tearnest money deposit back.  But, when there is no other bidder or
\n\tno one makes any highest offer and Court is inclined to confirm the
\n\tsale in favour of the highest bidder, at this stage, if the offer is
\n\twithdrawn, the earnest money deposit of such highest bidder will
\n\tcertainly be liable to be forfeited and in a given case, such person
\n\tshall also be exposed to other consequences as contemplated in the
\n\tterms of the Tender document.  The view which this Court is taking
\n\tin the present case, finds support from the decision of Rajasthan
\n\tHigh Court in the case of  Bhanwarlal V\/s. The State of
\n\tRajasthan and others, AIR 1976 RAJASTHAN 215.  In this case,
\n\ttenders were invited for sale of country liquor group shops.  The
\n\toffer was withdrawn prior to its acceptance.  The Court found that
\n\tthere is a statutory condition in the tender form that tenderer had
\n\tno right to withdraw.  The Court held that earnest money deposit was
\n\tliable to be forfeited on withdrawal by tenderer.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the foregoing discussion, the Court hereby directs the
\n\tOfficial Liquidator to forfeit the entire amount of earnest money
\n\tdeposit paid by the highest bidder i.e. M\/s. Mahakali Scrap Traders.
\n\t In absence of any other bidder, the property is not sold and hence,
\n\tit is premature at this stage to say that any loss or damage is
\n\tsuffered by the Official Liquidator by virtue of withdrawal of an
\n\toffer by the highest bidder.  The Court, therefore, does not express
\n\tany opinion at this stage.  It is, however, open for the Official
\n\tLiquidator to raise such issue when the property is sold and price
\n\tfetched is less than Rs. 4,31,00,000\/-.  It is also open for the
\n\tpresent highest bidder to raise all its objections if any claim is
\n\tmade against it by way of damages.\n<\/p>\n
Subject
\n\tto the aforesaid directions and observations, prayers made in clause\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) and (b) of para 10 of the report are disposed off.  As far as
\n\tprayer (c) is concerned, the action of the Official Liquidator of
\n\tmaking payment of Rs. 15,700\/- to the advertising agency, namely,
\n\tM\/s. Navnitlal & Co. is hereby ratified.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tfar as prayer (d) regarding sanction of professional bill of Rs.
\n\t21,000\/- of Shri N.K. Shah, Govt. Approved Valuer is concerned, the
\n\tValuer has raised his bill dated 07.02.2003.  The same appears to
\n\thave been received in the office of the Official Liquidator on
\n\t09.05.2005.  In the same letter-cum-bill dated 07.02.2003, it is
\n\tstated that as per the Official Liquidator letter dated 29.01.2003,
\n\the has visited the site on 30.01.2003 and 03.02.2003 along with
\n\tOfficial Liquidator’s representative and submitted Inventory and its
\n\tValuation report in duplicate.  However, summary of the Valuation
\n\tReport produced at Annexure E to the present Report is of
\n\t02.08.1999.  Even the complete Valuation Report produced by the
\n\tOfficial Liquidator, after it is called for by the Court, is of
\n\t02.08.1999.  However, the same did not appear to have been received
\n\tby the Official Liquidator.  There is one more covering
\n\tletter-cum-bill dated 07.02.2003 along with the said report.  This
\n\tentire bunch of papers must have been received by the Official
\n\tLiquidator on 09.05.2003.  It, therefore, appears to the Court that
\n\ton 12.03.2005, when the advertisement appeared in the Newspaper
\n\tfixing the upset price of buildings and construction, at Rs. 150
\n\tLacs, the Valuation Report might not be available as the value of
\n\tconstruction and building is determined at Rs. 90 Lacs.  Possibly
\n\tafter disclosure of the Report, the highest bidder has withdrawn its
\n\toffer.  Be that as it may, the Official Liquidator has not correctly
\n\tplaced all the relevant facts before the Court.  It is not certain
\n\tas to whether the Valuer has given any other Valuation Report in
\n\tFebruary, 2003.  In absence of proper details before the Court, the
\n\tProfessional Bill of the Valuer is not sanctioned at present.  The
\n\tOfficial Liquidator is, therefore, directed to clarify the following
\n\tissues in a separate Report, after calling for necessary explanation
\n\tfrom the Valuer :-\n<\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\tthe Valuer has raised and forwarded any Bill along with his letter
\n\t\tdated 02.08.1999.\n<\/p>\n
Why
\n\t\tthe letter dated 02.08.1999 is not produced before the Court at the
\n\t\ttime of filing O.L.R. No. 68 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\tthe Valuer has prepared any Inventory and Valuation Report pursuant
\n\t\tto his visit on 31.01.2003 and 03.02.2003.  If it is so, the same
\n\t\tshall be produced before the Court.\n<\/p>\n
Why
\n\t\tthe letter dated 07.02.2003 is stated to have been received on
\n\t\t09.05.2005.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\t\tupset price of Rs. 150 Lacs for buildings is fixed on what basis,
\n\t\tespecially when the Valuation Report has fixed the valuation of Rs.
\n\t\t90 Lacs.\n<\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\tplant and machineries, furniture and fixtures and stock have been
\n\t\tsold ?  Necessary orders for confirmation of such sale be produced.
\n\t\tThe Official Liquidator to explain as to why and by whom the
\n\t\tmistake has been committed to include the sale of land in the
\n\t\tadvertisement ?  Any offer has ever been invited for sale of land.\n<\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\tany letter is received from Virasat Reality Pvt. Ltd. requesting to
\n\t\tretain its Earnest Money Deposit and raising its bid to Rs.
\n\t\t4,31,00,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\tVirasat Reality Pvt. Ltd. has been paid back the Earnest Money
\n\t\tDeposit ? If yes, when ?\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tabove compliance be made by the Official Liquidator within one week
\n\tfrom today. To be notified in the Ist Board on 30.08.2005 for
\n\tcompliance only.\n<\/p>\n
This
\n\tO.L. Report is accordingly disposed off.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t [K.A.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPUJ, J.]<\/p>\n
Savariya<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court O.L.Of vs M.A.Narmawala on 18 April, 2011 Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print OLR\/68\/2005 23\/ 23 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD OFFICIAL LIQUDATOR REPORT No. 68 of 2005 In COMPANY PETITION No. 205 of 1996 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ ===================================================== 1 Whether […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35275","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nO.L.Of vs M.A.Narmawala on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"O.L.Of vs M.A.Narmawala on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-28T01:38:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"O.L.Of vs M.A.Narmawala on 18 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-28T01:38:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3479,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011\",\"name\":\"O.L.Of vs M.A.Narmawala on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-28T01:38:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"O.L.Of vs M.A.Narmawala on 18 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"O.L.Of vs M.A.Narmawala on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"O.L.Of vs M.A.Narmawala on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-28T01:38:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"O.L.Of vs M.A.Narmawala on 18 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-28T01:38:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011"},"wordCount":3479,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011","name":"O.L.Of vs M.A.Narmawala on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-28T01:38:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-l-of-vs-m-a-narmawala-on-18-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"O.L.Of vs M.A.Narmawala on 18 April, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35275","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=35275"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35275\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35275"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35275"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35275"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}