Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 9728 of 2002
PETITIONER:
PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD. & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/08/2002
BENCH:
S. RAJENDRA BABU & P. VENKATARAMA REDDI.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
RAJENDRA BABU, J. :
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 advertisement 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.
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.
Now, an attempt is sought to be made by the petitioner to
participate 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 mis-understood
its own order. In the circumstances of the case, we do not think that
any interference is called for in the order made by the High Court. The
amounts of money deposited by the petitioner pursuant to order dated
3.5.2002 be refunded. Subject as aforesaid, the petition stands
dismissed. No costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2