Santan Pathak v. The Official Liquidator, High Court, Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

COMPANY APPEAL(DB) No.3 of 2022 In COMPANY PETITION No.1 of 1996 ====================================================== Santan Pathak Son of Late Bhuneshwar Pathak Resident of Main Road, Tandwa, Ward No.- 19, P.S.- Garhwa, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand- 822114. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The Official Liquidator, High Court, Patna Mauryalok Complex, A Block, 4th Floor, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna- 800001.

2.

Sri Sri Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Jhunjhunwala Son of Sri Girdhari Lal Jhunjhunwala Resident of Ward No.- 36, Bara Patthar, Gali No.- 9, Dehri, P.S.- Dehri, District- Rohtas.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 02-08-2023 In the instant petition, the appellant has prayed for the following relief:-

1. That this Memo of Appeal on behalf of the Appellant is directed against the order dated 18-5-2022 passed in Company Petition No. 1 of 1996 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma by which the Hon'ble Company Judge has been pleased to accept provisionally the offer of Rs. 8,20,00,000/- of the respondent no. 2 in the Bid which was held on 18-5-2022 itself before the Hon'ble Court.

2. The one and only contention raised by the appellant in support of challenge to the order dated 18.05.2022, passed in

Patna High Court COMP. APP.(DB) No.3 of 2022(7) dt.02-08-2023 2/2 Company Petition No. 01 of 1996 that the learned Company Judge has provisionally accepted the offer of Rs.8,20,00,000/- of the respondent no. 2 in the auction with reference to the bid which was stated to have been held on 18.05.2022, when Respondent No. 2 was facing criminal proceedings.

3. The appellant's contention is that respondent no. 2 is not entitled to participate in auction proceedings in view of his antecedents that he is involved in criminal case. The appellant could not apprise this Court to the extent that is/was there any prohibition against a person, who is facing criminal proceedings is not entitle to participate in auction proceedings?

4. Such a condition has not been pointed out in the auction proceedings. Therefore, there is no infirmity and the contention of the petitioner that respondent no. 2 is involved in criminal case and he is not entitle to participate in bid is untenable.

5. Accordingly, the present Company Appeal stands dismissed.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) Amrendra/ashish kr/- ( Jitendra Kumar, J) U