Kerala High Court
P.Anantharajan vs Official Liquidator on 31 May, 2021
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:
P.ANANTHARAJAN
0
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:
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR
0
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.
3. 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
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.
4. 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.
5. In reply to Annexure -A3 letter, the Official
Liquidator, by letter dated 06.12.2019, informed the
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.
6. 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.
7. The appellant filed Company Application No.75/2020
to set aside Annexure -A4 letter of the Official Liquidator
whereby the EMD was forfeited.
8. The appellant also filed Company Application
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.
9. 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.
10. 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
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.
12. 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
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.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
spc/
