IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CAPP No. 23 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.12.2010 Itfak Traders ...Appellant Versus Official Liquidator (SFL Industries Ltd.) and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Puneet Kansal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for Official Liquidator. Mr. Alok Jagga, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Ms. Jai Shree Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 6. **** MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J.(Oral) This appeal has been filed by the appellant impugning order dated 7.10.2010 passed by the learned Company Judge in C.P. No. 77 of 2010 . 2. The only issue arising in the present appeal is that on 25.9.2009, learned Company Judge permitted the official liquidator to sell the assets/properties of the company by issuing public notices and consequently three daily newspapers published an advertisement for CAPP No. 23 of 2010 (O&M) [2] sale of assets of the company in two lots. The claims had also been invited from the creditors and workmen. In pursuance of those advertisements, 7 tenders were received i.e. 4 of Composite Lot and 3 for Lot No. II. The Official Liquidator recommended acceptance of the bid of the appellant i.e. M/s Itfaq Traders for a total sum of Rs. 3.21 Crores of the two lots with the consent of the secured creditors. In CA No. 596 of 2010 in C.P. No. 105 of 2009, one M/s S.R. Buildcon Private Ltd., had made an offer to buy the assets of the Company for a total sum of Rs. 3.45 Crore but the said offer was not found to be tenable for the reason that there was no substantial increase in the amount of sale than the one offered by the appellant. The Official Liquidator and the learned counsel for the secured creditors wanted to explore the possibility of higher bids in view of the fact that one bidder was ready to pay Rs. 24 lacs more than the one offered by the appellant. In view of these circumstances, the learned Company Judge directed the Official Liquidator to issue a fresh advertisements to again explore the possibility of higher bids. The appellant, a successful tenderer/bidder, however, was not inclined to be a party to the second advertisement and wanted to withdraw its bid. The learned Company Judge declined its request pending response to the fresh advertisements. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Company Judge, the appellant has approached this Court by way of present appeal and prays that it be permitted to withdraw the bid amount. CAPP No. 23 of 2010 (O&M) [3] 4. We are satisfied that in case a new advertisement has been issued, the appellant who was the highest bidder for the erstwhile advertisement cannot be made to suffer by not allowing to withdraw the bid amount paid by it, since its offer was not accepted. 5. In this view of the matter, we set aside order passed by the learned Single Judge and permit the appellant to withdraw the amount of Rs. 80.25 lacs deposited with the Official Liquidator in pursuance of its bid. However, learned counsel for the respondents say that they have no objection if the appellant would stake its earlier offer. In case the appellant seeks leave to withdraw the bid amount, the same shall be returned to it not later than four weeks from the demand having been received by the Official Liquidator. It is directed that re-advertisement may be done expeditiously by the Official Liquidator. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE (RANJAN GOGOI) 03.12.2010 JUDGE 'ravinder'