M/S.Phoenix Arc Private Ltd., v. The Official Liquidator,
Comp.A.No.330 of 2016 in C.P.No.207 of 2003 RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
1. Mr.Om Prakash, who appears for the secured creditor i.e., Phoenix ARC Private Limited, reports that no bids were received, at the auction held on 18.11.2016.
2. To be noted, via this application, modification was sought of order dated 05.04.2013. The operative directions contained in the order dated 05.04.2013, are set out in paragraph No.8 of the said order. For the sake of convenience, the same is set out hereafter:
"8. Consequently, this application is ordered. The application is permitted to auction the property under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, subject to the condition that the amount received by auction, shall be deposited with the Official Liquidator for distribution under Section 529-A of the Companies Act. The applicant is further directed to associate the Official Liquidator with the sale of secured assets."
3. At the hearing held on 21.09.2016, the applicant had agreed with the consent of representatives of the Workers Union, the ESIC, the EPFO and the Central Excise Department, to publish an auction notice by reducing the upset
price by further 10%. Despite the said reduction in the upset price, as indicated above, no bids have been received. Furthermore, a direction had also been issued in the very same order that amounts, if any, realised, via the auction, would be kept in an interest bearing, no lien account, till further orders of this Court.
3.1. This apart, the applicant was directed to keep in mind the directions contained in the earlier orders of the Court, i.e., orders dated 29.04.2016, 06.07.2016 and 27.07.2016.
4. Today, however, a common consensus which has emerged amongst counsels appearing before me, is that, the applicant/secured creditor should be allowed, a free hand, in selling the secured assets in consonance with the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited Vs. Haryana Concast Limited and others, (2016) 4 SCC 47.
4.1. To be noted, Mr.K.Srinivas, represents the Workers Union; Mr.K.Gunasekaran, represents EPFO; Mr.Prasannna, represents ESIC; while Ms.Hemalatha, represents Central Excise Department. 4.2. The OL, i.e, Mr.Ramaiyah is also present in Court.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, the captioned application is closed with the following directions: (i) The applicant shall conduct the auction qua the secured assets, in its possession, keeping in mind the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited Vs. Haryana Concast Limited and others.
(ii) Since, the applicant agrees that the moneys realised from the auction, so conducted, shall be kept in an interest bearing, no lien account; it is ordered accordingly.
(iii) The OL will take steps for inviting claim of creditors so that no further time is wasted. The OL will also take steps to adjudicate the claims received by him.
(iv) As soon as adjudication is completed by the OL, the information with regard to the value of the claims of workmen and/or other creditors would be furnished to the applicant, so that, steps can be taken for distribution, in accordance with the extant provisions of law.
RAJIV SHAKDHER,J.
vsm
6. Accordingly, no further orders are called for. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, as indicated above. Comp.A.Nos.36 and 37 of 2016 in C.P.No.207 of 2003
7. At request of the learned counsel for the applicant, re-notify on 19.12.2016.
vsm 25.11.2016 Comp.A.No.330 of 2016 in C.P.No.207 of 2003 http://www.judis.nic.in