Punjab Builders vs Appellate Authority For ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 3237 Del

*                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            CM APPL. NO. 6407/2010
                                                       in
                                             W.P. ( C) 18637/2005

                                                                Date of decision: July 13, 2010.

PUNJAB BUILDERS                                                           . . .PETITIONER

                                                  THROUGH : Mr. Rishi Kapoor, Advocate.

                                   VERSUS

APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR
INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL
RECONSTRUCTION & ORS.                                                   . . . RESPONDENTS

THROUGH: Mr. Ashish Wad, Advocate with Mr. Chirag Dave, Advocate for Respondent nos. 5 to 7.

Mr. Rajiv Bansal for the Official Liquidator

CORAM :-

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?

A.K. SIKRI, J. ( ORAL)

1. M/s. Bharat Commerce Industries Limited/Respondent-4 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Company') is in liquidation. It has its registered office in

Madhya Pradesh. We may note that the said Company has approached the

Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) for its revival as it had

become a sick Company. However, the reference was ultimately rejected by

BIFR holding that the Company was not capable of being revived. It,

accordingly, recommended winding up of the Company and pursuant thereto,

High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed winding up orders and appointed Official

Liquidator. The Official Liquidator took charge of the assets and affairs of the

Company. We may also point out that when the proceedings were pending

before BIFR, at its direction, advertisements were published in the Newspaper

on 24th May, 2004 inviting offers for Rajpura Unit of the Company/Respondent-

4. Certain persons including the petitioner, respondent nos. 5 to 7 as well as

respondent nos. 8 and 9 submitted their offers. According to the BIFR, since

the bid of respondent nos. 5 to 7 was the only bid given in time which was in

the sum of Rupees 2,84,000/-, BIFR did not accept any offer. However,

respondent nos. 5 to 7 preferred appeal against the order of BIFR before the

AAIFR which allowed the appeal and directed the acceptance of offer of

respondent nos. 5 to 7 of Rs. 2,84,000/-. Against this order, respondent nos. 8

to 9 preferred Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Respondent no. 5 to 7 have filed Special Leave Petition and status quo was

granted. Even respondent no. 8 & 9 have filed SLP as their grievance is that

their bid should have been accepted. This SLP is pending for consideration

before the Supreme Court.

2. The petitioner herein had filed the instant petition (third bidder) with the

prayer that his bid should be considered and accepted as he is the highest

bidder.

3. In this writ petition, interim orders dated 17th September, 2007 were

passed directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 3.15 crores with the

Registrar General of this Court to show its bona fide. The petitioner duly

complied with this direction and deposited the said amount accordingly.

However, thereafter, in April, 2010 the petitioner filed CM No.5524/2010 for

withdrawal of the writ petition stating therein that he was no more interested in

the said purchase of the property because of prolonged litigation. The said

application was allowed and writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. In this

backdrop, present application is filed by the petitioner for withdrawal of the FDR

amount deposited by it with the Registry of this Court. Since the petitioner is no

more in contention and has withdrawn its writ petition including its bid, there is

no reason why the aforesaid amount deposited by the petitioner be not

refunded to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a

statement at the Bar that ultimately the dispute about the purchase of the

aforesaid property of the respondent no.4 is now between respondent nos. 5 to

7 on the one hand and respondent nos. 8 and 9 on the other hand. We

accordingly direct the Registry of this Court to release the FDR deposited by the

petitioner in the writ petition.

This application is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                            (A.K. SIKRI)
                                                                              JUDGE



                                                                      (REVA KHETRAPAL)
JULY 13, 2010                                                                JUDGE
skb