IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 Co.Appeal.No. 8 of 2008() ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CP.NO.48/2001 Dated 29/05/2008 .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT ------------------------------------ V.V.ABDUL RAHIMAN, NAVALL PARAMBE, CHAKKARAPARAMBE, THAMMANAM P.O, KOCHI-32. BY ADV. SRI.N.J.MATHEWS RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M/S.RAJSREE NETWORKS, B-52/A, SIDDHARTH EXTENSION, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY P.K.PARAMESWARAN NAIR. 3. K.Y.ABDU, KARUPPANATH, 13/1181 E, R.K.PILLAI ROAD, KOCHI-5. SRI. K.MONI, OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR ADV. SRI.K.H.ABDUL AZEEZ FOR R3 THIS COMPANY APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- Company Appeal No.8 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 18th July, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . By order dated 7.3.2008 in Report No.1 in the main Report No.32 in this Company Petition, the Company Court ordered re-auction to be held at 3 p.m. on 25.3.2008 in the office of the Official Liquidator, further directing that Sri.Abdu, Sri.V.V.Abdul Rahiman and Sri.P.K.Parameswaran Nair may be permitted to participate. It is not stated that they only are allowed to participate. What was mentioned is that they may be permitted to participate. Accordingly, re-auction was conducted. Another person one Sankara Narayanan who paid EMD as required also was allowed to participate in the auction. He did not bid any amount may be perhaps due to the objection from other persons. The appellant did not attend the auction proceedings on the date and the time fixed. The Third respondent was the highest bidder. He bid for Rs.82 lakhs in the open auction. Earlier, appellant's offer was Rs.65 lakhs. Now, because of the open auction the bid was for Rs.82 lakhs. Following the above, EMD paid by the appellant was returned and he also accepted the same. Now, the appellant cannot contend that if auction was delayed, he could have participated etc. It is true that a Co.A.8/2008 2 fourth person also paid EMD, but, he did not bid. In any event, out of the three persons mentioned in the order of the Company Court, two persons participated and the person who was the highest bidder in the public auction was one of the persons specifically allowed by the Company Court in the earlier order. His contention that he went to office of the Official Liquidator at 3 p.m., but, he was not permitted to enter the office till 3.05 p.m., was not proved by any materials. It is not only the third respondent who participated in the auction but the other persons also participated in the auction. Learned Company Judge also noted the presumption available in favour of the auction mentioned under section 114 of the Evidence Act. After passage of time, properties may fetch more amount is not a ground for cancelling the public auction conducted according to law. Learned Company Judge has considered the reports and Report No.3 in the Main Report No.32 was approved. The Company Application filed by the appellant was dismissed. We are of the opinion that no interference is warranted in the order of the Company Court. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE tks