CM APPL. NO. 6407/2010 IN W.P. ( C) 18637/2005) Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CM APPL. NO. 6407/2010 in W.P. ( C) 18637/2005 Date of decision: July 13, 2010. PUNJAB BUILDERS . . .PETITIONER THROUGH : Mr. Rishi Kapoor, Advocate. VERSUS APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION & ORS. . . . RESPONDENTS THROUGH: Mr. Ashish Wad, Advocate with Mr. Chirag Dave, Advocate for Respondent nos. 5 to 7. Mr. Rajiv Bansal for the Official Liquidator CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? A.K. SIKRI, J. ( ORAL) 1. M/s. Bharat Commerce Industries Limited/Respondent-4 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’) is in liquidation. It has its registered office in Madhya Pradesh. We may note that the said Company has approached the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) for its revival as it had become a sick Company. However, the reference was ultimately rejected by BIFR holding that the Company was not capable of being revived. It, accordingly, recommended winding up of the Company and pursuant thereto, High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed winding up orders and appointed Official Liquidator. The Official Liquidator took charge of the assets and affairs of the Company. We may also point out that when the proceedings were pending CM APPL. NO. 6407/2010 IN W.P. ( C) 18637/2005) Page 2 of 3 before BIFR, at its direction, advertisements were published in the Newspaper on 24th May, 2004 inviting offers for Rajpura Unit of the Company/Respondent- 4. Certain persons including the petitioner, respondent nos. 5 to 7 as well as respondent nos. 8 and 9 submitted their offers. According to the BIFR, since the bid of respondent nos. 5 to 7 was the only bid given in time which was in the sum of Rupees 2,84,000/-, BIFR did not accept any offer. However, respondent nos. 5 to 7 preferred appeal against the order of BIFR before the AAIFR which allowed the appeal and directed the acceptance of offer of respondent nos. 5 to 7 of Rs. 2,84,000/-. Against this order, respondent nos. 8 to 9 preferred Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Respondent no. 5 to 7 have filed Special Leave Petition and status quo was granted. Even respondent no. 8 & 9 have filed SLP as their grievance is that their bid should have been accepted. This SLP is pending for consideration before the Supreme Court. 2. The petitioner herein had filed the instant petition (third bidder) with the prayer that his bid should be considered and accepted as he is the highest bidder. 3. In this writ petition, interim orders dated 17th September, 2007 were passed directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 3.15 crores with the Registrar General of this Court to show its bona fide. The petitioner duly complied with this direction and deposited the said amount accordingly. However, thereafter, in April, 2010 the petitioner filed CM No.5524/2010 for withdrawal of the writ petition stating therein that he was no more interested in the said purchase of the property because of prolonged litigation. The said application was allowed and writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. In this backdrop, present application is filed by the petitioner for withdrawal of the FDR amount deposited by it with the Registry of this Court. Since the petitioner is no more in contention and has withdrawn its writ petition including its bid, there is CM APPL. NO. 6407/2010 IN W.P. ( C) 18637/2005) Page 3 of 3 no reason why the aforesaid amount deposited by the petitioner be not refunded to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a statement at the Bar that ultimately the dispute about the purchase of the aforesaid property of the respondent no.4 is now between respondent nos. 5 to 7 on the one hand and respondent nos. 8 and 9 on the other hand. We accordingly direct the Registry of this Court to release the FDR deposited by the petitioner in the writ petition. This application is disposed of accordingly. (A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE (REVA KHETRAPAL) JULY 13, 2010 JUDGE skb