IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Co.Appeal.No. 26 of 2009() -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN REPORT NO.2 IN Co.Appln.No.380 OF 2009 AND 398 OF 2009 IN REPORT NO. 21 IN C.P.No.2 of 2003 .................... APPELLANT: APPELLANT IN C.A.No.380/2009 -------------------- V.H. ABOO, S/O. HUSSAIN, PROPRIETOR, HAYATH INTERNATIONAL, V/469, LOBO JUNCTION, KOCHI - 682 002. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------ 1. M/S. ELEERA SUBSTRATES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION), REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 682 021. 2. THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (KSIDC), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KESTON ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. HANEEFA.P, KONDOTTY PARACKAL HOUSE, KARYAVATTOM, MANNARMALA.P.O, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM. 4. HARVEST INDUSTRIES, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, DEVELOPMENT PLOT.P.O, KALAMASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ BY SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.C.A.NAVAS BY ADV. SRI.K.S.AJAYAGHOSH BY ADV. SRI.K.MONI FOR OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR THIS COMPANY APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON ------------------------------- Co. Appeal No.26 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 26th November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Appellant submitted his offer pursuant to the tender invited. Though his original offer was Rs.88 lakhs, he has enhanced the same from Rs.88 lakhs to Rs.92,52,000/-. There was yet another tenderer who also increased his offer from Rs.1,00,01,000/- to Rs.1,05,01,000/-. Thus, only two tenders with increased offer came up for consideration. Considering the assets of the Company, the learned Company Judge thought that the revised offers received were not satisfactory, and therefore, he was not inclined to confirm the sale in favour of either of the applicants at that stage, and directed the Official Liquidator to invite fresh bids from the general public. Contending that he is not interested in making any offer pursuant to the new advertisement, he sought for return of his EMD deposit. The learned Company Judge felt that it will not be proper at that Co.Appeal No.26 of 2009 2 stage to pass such an order and adjourned the case to be posted after a week. Thus, the Company Judge has not declined to return the security deposit, but only deferred the request to be considered on a later stage. No error of Law arise from such an order. It is only when the request for withdrawal of the security deposit, if ultimately, is dismissed, that would arise a cause for any grievance. At any rate, the discretion having been exercised properly, we do not find any reason to interfere in this appeal, at this stage. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. nj.