IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 Co.Appeal.No. 7 of 2009(B) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN C.A.No.44/09 IN CP.34/1998 Dated 26.3.2009) .................... APPELLANTS: -------------------- 1. IMAAS MARKETING PVT.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE TC/20/2040(2), KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 0025, KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR M.R.GOVINDANKUTTY. 2. IMAAS MARKETING PVT.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE TC/20/2040(2), ADMINISTRATION OFFICE, VALLABHASSERY BUILDING, CHINGAVANAM, KOTTAYAM - 686 531 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR M.R.GOVINDANKUTTY. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB RESPONDENT: --------------------- M/S.LAKSHMI STARCH LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COMPANY LAW BHAVAN, 3RD FLOOR, B.M.C.ROAD, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KOCHI - 682 021. BY ADV. SRI.K.MONI-OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR THIS COMPANY APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ Com.Appeal No.7 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 24th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Joseph, J. The Official Liquidator invited tenders by sealed cover tender procedure fixing the last date. As per the tender conditions clause (3) provides that tender shall be accompanied by the EMD by means of crossed Demand Draft. The appellant did not produce EMD in the form of crossed Demand Draft. So its tender application was rejected. The appellant filed Company Application. That application has been rejected by the learned Company Judge. This appeal is filed against the order of the learned Company Judge. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Official Liquidator. Sri.P.P.Jacob learned counsel for the appellant made an attempt to assail the order of the Company Judge by referring to Annexure-I judgment. That is a case where the Division Bench had dealt with an appeal filed for permission to the appellant therein to Com.Appeal No.7/2009 -2- inspect the plant and machinery and movables of the liquidated company kept for sale. Though the appellant has not participated in the tender, having regard to the price offered and the value it took note of the contention of the appellant that he will be able to offer higher price. In such circumstances, the appeal was allowed vacating the order of the Company Court with direction to the Official Liquidator to permit the appellant to inspect the movables of the liquidated company on deposit of Rs.25,000/- with the Official Liquidator. 3. There is no dispute that the appellant had not produced the EMD in the form of crossed Demand Draft as was the requirement of the invitation to the tender issued by the Official Liquidator. According to the appellant it had placed an undated cheque. The learned Judge also took note of the public purpose and the rationale behind it. We feel that the Company Judge was not in error in rejecting the application filed by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is a move to confirm the sale in favour of the person who has quoted Rs.2.92 crores which is a conditional offer. We are not called upon to Com.Appeal No.7/2009 -3- pronounce on the said question. The Company Appeal is without any merit and it is dismissed. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS