Prakash Industries Ltd. Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No.9728 of 2002.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.5.2002 of the Mumbai High Court in A.No.293 of 2001 in Notice of Motion No.1316\99 in S. No.3196 of 1998)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.5.2002 of the Mumbai High Court in A.No.293 of 2001 in Notice of Motion No.1316\99 in S. No.3196 of 1998)
Petitioner: Prakash Industries Ltd.
Respondent: Development Credit Bank Ltd. & Anr.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No.9728 of 2002.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.5.2002 of the Mumbai High Court in A.No.293 of 2001 in Notice of Motion No.1316\99 in S. No.3196 of 1998)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.5.2002 of the Mumbai High Court in A.No.293 of 2001 in Notice of Motion No.1316\99 in S. No.3196 of 1998)
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 05, 2002
Appearances:
Mr. R.F. Nariman, Senior Advocate, Mr. Dinesh Pruendekar, Mr. Gopal Jain, Mrs. Nandini Gore, Advocates with him for the Peti-tioner.
Mr. Arun Jaitely, Senior Advocate Mr. Jatin Zaveri and Mr Vinay, Advocates with him for the Respondents.
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Article 136 – Relief – Suit for recovery of money – Machinery under possession of receiver – Motion for sale of machinery – Prayer granted by High Court subject to sanction of court and with liberty to petitioner to participate in sale – Later, offer received and sanction obtained to sell machinery for Rs. 1.26 crores – Subsequently petitioner offering Rs. 1.30 crores – Request declined by High Court. Held that no interference is called for. (Paras 2, 3)
JUDGEMENT:
RAJENDRA BABU, J.
1. The respondents brought a suit on the original side of the Bombay High Court for recovery of certain sum of money against the petitioner and the guarantor. In respect of machinery which had been stated to have been financed by the respondent-bank a court receiver was appointed and the respondents took out a notice of motion making several prayers, including one for sale of the suit machinery. The learned trial judge refused the prayer for the same. On appeal to the division bench, the same had been allowed subject to sanction of the court and with liberty to the petitioner to participate in the sale as and when it is held. Pursuant to the order of sale, the respondents issued advertise-ment and also received offers for the same. An application was made to the division bench seeking permission for sale of the suit machinery to the person having made the best offer which was at Rs. 1.26 crores. However, subsequently, the petitioner offered a sum of Rs. 1.30 crores. The division bench had refused to consider the said request. Hence this petition.
2. The division bench of the High Court is of the opinion that nothing had been done by the petitioner to take part in the sale as and when it was sought to be held and did not participate in the same. It was made clear in the advertisement that interested parties should apply within 15 days and, therefore, the High Court is of the opinion that there was no bona fides on the part of the petitioner.
3. Now, an attempt is sought to be made by the petitioner to partic-ipate in the sale proceedings by contending that it is at the stage of confirmation of sale that the petitioner’s request ought to be considered if it is the best offer available in the market and viable. This exercise appears to us to be only the after-thought and the view taken by the division bench of the High Court does not call for any interference. The High Court cannot be stated to have misunderstood its own order. In the circum-stances of the case, we do not think that any interference is called for in the order made by the High Court. The amount of money deposited by the petitioner pursuant to order dated 3.5.2002 be refunded. Subject as aforesaid, the petition stands dismissed. No costs.
1. The respondents brought a suit on the original side of the Bombay High Court for recovery of certain sum of money against the petitioner and the guarantor. In respect of machinery which had been stated to have been financed by the respondent-bank a court receiver was appointed and the respondents took out a notice of motion making several prayers, including one for sale of the suit machinery. The learned trial judge refused the prayer for the same. On appeal to the division bench, the same had been allowed subject to sanction of the court and with liberty to the petitioner to participate in the sale as and when it is held. Pursuant to the order of sale, the respondents issued advertise-ment and also received offers for the same. An application was made to the division bench seeking permission for sale of the suit machinery to the person having made the best offer which was at Rs. 1.26 crores. However, subsequently, the petitioner offered a sum of Rs. 1.30 crores. The division bench had refused to consider the said request. Hence this petition.
2. The division bench of the High Court is of the opinion that nothing had been done by the petitioner to take part in the sale as and when it was sought to be held and did not participate in the same. It was made clear in the advertisement that interested parties should apply within 15 days and, therefore, the High Court is of the opinion that there was no bona fides on the part of the petitioner.
3. Now, an attempt is sought to be made by the petitioner to partic-ipate in the sale proceedings by contending that it is at the stage of confirmation of sale that the petitioner’s request ought to be considered if it is the best offer available in the market and viable. This exercise appears to us to be only the after-thought and the view taken by the division bench of the High Court does not call for any interference. The High Court cannot be stated to have misunderstood its own order. In the circum-stances of the case, we do not think that any interference is called for in the order made by the High Court. The amount of money deposited by the petitioner pursuant to order dated 3.5.2002 be refunded. Subject as aforesaid, the petition stands dismissed. No costs.
