1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Company Application No. 173 of 2008 IN OLR No. 62 of 2003 [decided] IN Company Petition No. 5 of 2001 [Akola Zilla Kamgar Sangh [INTUC] Akola & another Vs. The Akola Oil Industries Ltd.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.M. Ghare, Adv., for the applicants. Mr. Shriniwas Deshpande, Adv., for respondent. ----- CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATE : 13th February, 2009. 1. Order dated 7th September, 2007 made by this Court in OLR No. 62 of 2003 in Company Petition No. 5 of 2001 is sought to be recalled by filing the present Review Application. 2. Learned Counsel for the Review Applicants – Mr. Ghare argued that the Review Applicants are the secured creditors and, in fact, they being the Union of Workers, the workers have a preferential claim over all other types of creditors. He further argued that the review applicants are entitled to have a 2 Valuation Report at the threshold and, in fact, are entitled to participate in OLR proceedings, but were neither made parties, nor copies thereof were furnished to them and, therefore, there is a violation of principles of natural justice and consequently the order under review is liable to be set aside. 3. Mr. Ghare then argued that the property, namely the sanctioned layout out of Survey Nos. 60, 61 and 62 of Akola Oil Industries under liquidation, is now being put to sale as if it were a total area of three acres, ignoring that the same is actually a sanctioned layout by the Govt., and, therefore, according to him, it cannot entirely be sold at once, but by selling the plots, and sale of plots individually is bound to fetch maximum return, which is bound to benefit the works. For this purpose, he relies on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Union Bank of India Vs. Official Liquidator H.C. Of Calcutta & ors. [(2000) 5 SCC 274]. 4. Per contra, Mr. Deshapnde, learned counsel for the Official Liquidator, opposed the application and argued that along with the Pursis that was filed, Exh.A, a draft of advertisement, was filed, and this Court having examined that document, made the order in question and, therefore, there is nothing wrong with that order. 5. At any rate, according to Mr. Deshpande, putting the property in the advertisement for sale is not the end of the matter, since even the secured creditors have a 3 right to participate in the proceedings at the time of confirmation of sale in a separate OLR which is already moved by the Official Liquidator and, therefore, the grievance made by Mr. Ghare can be taken care of in that OLR and, therefore, this Court need not stall the further proceedings of auction sale by advertisement. He argued that on the same lines, the Judgment of the Supreme Court would only apply afterwards and not at this premature stage. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival party at length and also seen the documents and orders. 7. At the outset, I find that the Pursis, that was filed by the Liquidator, in terms, states that the Official Liquidator proposes sale of open plots in accordance with Exh.A filed along with the Pursis. I quote that portion found in this pursis for ready reference:- “Therefore, Official Liquidator is proposes that said open plots may please be permitted to sale by Official Liquidator as per Annexure enclosed and marked as Exhibit”A” by advertisement in the same notice submitted as Exhibit “A” of report No. 62 of 2003.” He further says in that Pursis “as Exhibit”B” - draft advertisement. 8. Now, in the first place, I find that in paragraph 2 and sub-para 2, there is a concrete statement made by the Official Liquidator that the property would be sold by plots, and one of the reasons appearing is that there is a 4 sanctioned layout approved by the Govt. This Court made an order acting on Exh.A, and did not look into the draft advertisement, relying on the statement in the Pursis as well as Exh.A. But then on reading the advertisement, it indicates no mention about all plots individually and what is mentioned is only land and area of the land. I do not wish to address on all the questions raised before me, and leave the same to be decided in the appropriate proceedings. 9. Without blaming anybody, therefore, I find that the order under review was obviously passed on a wrong premise and, therefore, the said order is reviewed and set aside. The proceedings shall now be placed before the regular Court and I leave the parties to take such steps before the Company Court as are legally available to them. 10. With this, Review Application is disposed of with no order as to costs. Judge |Hedau| 5