P.Anantharajan vs. Official Liquidator
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2021 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1943 CO.APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2020 IN C.A.NO.75/2020 AND C.A.NO.76/2020 IN C.P. 2/1996 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/APPLICANT: 0 P.ANANTHARAJAN AGED 58 YEARS S/O. PERIYASAMY, NO.7, HAPPY HOMES, SIVANAGAR, IST MAIN ROAD, RAMALINGA NAGAR, TRICHY, TAMIL NADU, PIN-620 003. BY ADV BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: 0 OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COMPANY LAW BHAVAN, THRIKKAKARA P.O., COCHIN-21, (M/S PREMIER CABLE COMPANY LIMITED) (IN LIQN) BY SRI.K.MONI THIS COMPANY APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.3.2021, THE COURT ON 31.05.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Co.Appeal No.2/2021 2 JUDGMENT Murali Purushothaman, J. The challenge in this appeal is against the common order dated 23.09.2020 in C.A. No.75/2020 and C.A. No.76/2020 in C.P. No. 2/1996. 2. The appellant participated in the auction held by the Official Liquidator for the sale of 5670 kilograms of copper ingots of M/s. Premier Cables Company Limited (in liquidation). The appellant was the highest bidder.
The Official Liquidator filed Report No.195 in C.P. No.2/1996 on 26.08.2019 for confirmation of sale in favour of the appellant. The learned Company Judge, by order dated 31.10.2019, confirmed the sale. Accordingly, the Official Liquidator, as per Annexure A2 letter dated 22.11.2019, informed the appellant that the sale has been confirmed in favour of the appellant and the appellant was called upon to remit the balance sale consideration of
Co.Appeal No.2/2021 3 Rs.20,81,920/- along with 18% GST by way of Demand Draft in favour of the Official Liquidator within 30 days from the date of order of confirmation by the Court as per the terms and conditions of the sale.
Meanwhile, by Annexure A1 letter dated 14.11.2019 sent through his counsel, the appellant informed the Official Liquidator that he was not informed whether he is the successful bidder and demanded return of EMD of Rs.50,000/-. On receipt of the Annexure A2 letter dated 22.11.2019 of the Official Liquidator regarding confirmation of sale, the appellant sent Annexure- A3 letter dated 29.11.2019 stating that he received Annexure -A2 letter of the Official Liquidator on 26.11.2019 and that he is not intending to proceed with the sale and requested for return of EMD.
In reply to Annexure -A3 letter, the Official Liquidator, by letter dated 06.12.2019, informed the
Co.Appeal No.2/2021 4 appellant that immediately on receipt of the copy of the order confirming the sale, the appellant was put on notice regarding the sale confirmation in favour of the appellant vide Annexure-A2 and inviting the attention of the appellant to the terms and conditions of the tender, requested the appellant to remit the entire balance sale consideration without further delay.
Since the appellant did not remit the balance sale consideration, the Official Liquidator by Annexure -A4 letter dated 17.02.2020, informed the appellant that the EMD of Rs. 50,000/- is forfeited in accordance with clauses 7 (g) and (h) of the terms and conditions of the tender accepted by the appellant.
The appellant filed Company Application No.75/2020 to set aside Annexure -A4 letter of the Official Liquidator whereby the EMD was forfeited.
The appellant also filed Company Application
Co.Appeal No.2/2021 5 No.76/2020 for direction to allow the appellant to remit the balance sale consideration in two installments within 3 months from the date of order after deducting the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited as EMD.
The learned Company Judge, by common order dated 23.09.2020, dismissed both the above applications observing that the said applications were filed only on 22.09.2020; by the time, the Court had already allowed the Official Liquidator to re-tender the sale of copper ingots and that the appellant has not offered any explanation for the long delay in approaching the Court.
As a sequel to the above Company Applications, the appellant had also filed a Company Application as C.A. No. 1/2021 for direction to confirm the sale in favour of the appellant on deposit of balance sale consideration as directed by the Court. The learned Company Judge, by order dated 18.02.2021, dismissed C.A. No. 1/2021 observing that
Co.Appeal No.2/2021 6 no order was passed by the Court to deposit the balance sale consideration and the Company Appeal No. 1/2021 filed against the said order was dismissed by us by Judgment dated 22.03.2021. 11. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondent.
The appellant did not avail of the opportunity to remit the balance sale consideration within the time granted and did not seek extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration. On the contrary, the only request of the appellant was for return of the EMD. Since the balance sale consideration was not remitted, the EMD was forfeited on 17-02-2020. The Court also allowed the Official Liquidator to re-tender the sale of copper ingots. The Company Application to set aside the communication of the Official liquidator forfeiting the EMD and the Company Application to remit the balance sale consideration in installments were
Co.Appeal No.2/2021 7 filed by the appellant on 22.09.2020, more than 7 months after the forfeiture of EMD. By this time, the Court had also allowed the Official Liquidator to re-tender the sale of copper ingots. Except for a bald statement that because of COVID-19 pandemic the appellant was not able to do anything in the matter, there is no valid explanation offered by the appellant for the long delay in approaching the Court. We concur with the reasons given by the learned Company Judge in dismissing the Company Applications and dismiss this appeal. C.T. RAVIKUMAR JUDGE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE spc/
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.