VALJI KHIMJI AND COMPANY v. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF HINDUSTAN NITRO PRODUCT (GUJARAT) LTD. AND ORS.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. 1. Leave granted.

2Copy pinpoint2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned final judgment & order dated 25.8.2005 & 26.8.2005 passed by the High Court of Gujarat atAhmedabad in O.J. Appeal No. 69 and B --1 70 of 2004 in O.J. Misc. Civil Application No. 175 of 2003 and CA No. 311 of 2004 respectively in Official Liquidator Report No. 49 of 2003.

3Copy pinpoint3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. c

4Copy pinpoint4. The facts of the case are that Hindustan Nitro Product (Gujarat) Ltd. was put under liquidation, and an official liquida- tor was appointed for it. The assets of the company were pro- posed to be auctioned, and hence the Court asked the official D liquidator to obtain a valuation report. The official liquidator af- ter obtaining the valuation report submitted it to the Court. The valuation of these assets, according to the official liquidator, was Rs.2.55 crores. The property was then put up for auction on 25.3.2003 after advertising it in various well-known newspa- pers having wide circulation, including 'The Economic Times' E which is a well known newspaper having wide circulation in the business community.

5Copy pinpoint5. Several bids were received and were opened in the Court. The highest bid was that of the appellant M/s. Valji Khimji F & Company amounting to Rs. 3.51 crores. With the consent of the learned advocates representing the secured creditors, the said bid was accepted and the sale was confirmed on 30.7.2003. The Court directed the appellant to deposit 25% of the purchase price i.e. Rs.63,98,000/- within 30 days from the G said day and to deposit the balance amount within the next three months. The Court also directed that the amount may be de- posited in installments, but no installment should be less than Rs.5 lakhs. These conditions were complied with by the appel- lant. H

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

6Copy pinpoint6. Although the sale was confirmed in· favour of the appel- lant on 30.7.2003, a letter dated 22.10.2003 was sent to the official liquidator by one M/s. Manibhadra Sales Corporation · (respondent No. 8 herein) offering to buy the assets in question for Rs.3.75 crores (though this offer was admittedly withdrawn r B later on).

7Copy pinpoint7. Subsequently in August 2004, Mis. Castwell Alloys Lim- ited (respondent No. 9 herein) made an offer of Rs.5 crores for the said assets. This offer was made more than one year after the confirmation of the sale in favour of the appellant. c

8Copy pinpoint8. Both Mis. Manibhadra Sales Corporation and M/s. Castwell Alloys Limited filed applications praying for recall of the order dated 30.7.2003 by which the sale was confirmed in favour of the appellant. On 10.9.2004, the learned Company Judge took up both these applications and passed an order 0 dated 10.9.2004 recalling the order dated 30.7.2003 by which the sale was confirmed.

9Copy pinpoint9. Aggrieved against the said order dated 10.9.2004 the appellant filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High E Court which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 25.8.2005 and 26.8.2005. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed before us by way of Special Leave.

10Copy pinpoint10. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment & order of the learned Division Bench as well as the order dated F 10.9.2004 of the learned Single Judge and are of the opinion that the same cannot be sustained.

11Copy pinpoint11. It may be noted that the auction sale was done after adequate publicity in well-known newspapers. Hence, if any one G wanted to make a bid in the auction he should have partici- pated in the said auction and made his bid. Moreover even after the auction the sale was confirmed by the High Court only on 30.7.2003, and any objection to the sale could have been filed prior to that date. However, in our opinion, entertaining ob- H jections after the sale is confirmed should not ordinarily be al-

VALJI KHIMJI & COMPANY v. OFFI. LIQUIDATOR OF HINDUSTAN 7 NITRO PRO. (GUJARAT) LTD. & ORS. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.]

-t-- lowed, except on very limited grounds like fraud, otherwise no A auction sale will ever be complete.

12Copy pinpoint12. It is not in dispute that the auction was an open auction after wide publicity in well-known newspapers. Hence, there was ~ nothing to prevent M/s. Manibhadra Sales Corporation and M/ s. Castwell Alloys Limited to have participated in the auction, B .;'

--\ but they did not do so. There is no allegation of fraud either in this case. Hence, in our opinion, there was no justification to set aside the confirmation of the sale.

13Copy pinpoint13. It appears that the reasoning of the learned Single c Judge, as also of the Division Bench, was that the valuation of the assets of the company was made as if these assets were scrap. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge of the High Court thus seems to be that the assets in question was wrongly given out to be scrap and thus a proper bid was not obtained. D

14Copy pinpoint14. In our opinion, there is nothing to show that the assets -r-' in question which were auctioned-sold were ever given out to be scrap. They are not mentioned as scrap in the advertise- ment or sale notice, nor is there any material to show that the valuer valued them treating them to be scrap. E

15Copy pinpoint15. We have carefully perused the sale notice and we find that it is nowhere mentioned therein that the assets in question are scrap.

16Copy pinpoint16. No doubt , the assets of M/s. Hindustan Nitro Product F (Gujarat) Limited offered to be sold in the auction sale were of- fered in lots (as mentioned in the sale notice). The first lot was plant machineries and all other movables excluding building struc- tu re, records and compound wall, the second lot was the building structure except T.K. Office, records & compound wall, the third G lot was a composite offer (I & II) above, the fourth lot was land except records, and the fifth lot was a composite offer (i.e. Ill & IV above). In our opinion, this cannot be described as scrap.

17Copy pinpoint17. The word 'scrap' would ordinarily mean something which cannot be used for the same purpose for which it was H

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 12 S.C.R.

A being earlier used even after repairing or renovating the same. >- There is nothing to show that the items proposed to be auc- tioned sold was scrap, i.e. they could not be used for the same purpose for which they were earlier used after repairing or re- conditioning the same. ~ i·

18Copy pinpoint18. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that \ .... the assets proposed to be auctioned sold were not in a running ~ condition and hence were 'scrap'. We cannot agree. In our opin- ion merely because the assets were not in a running condition it does not mean that-they were scrap. For instance, if the en- c gine of a motor car is not functioning due to, some defect, that · does not mean that the motor car has become scrap. The mo- tor car can be towed to a garage where a motor mechanic can repair it and then it can again become in running condition. The motor car will become scrap only if it is in such a dilapidated 'D condition that it can never be made in running condition again despite repairs and renovation, an~ hence it will have to be ~·

' sold as a piece of metal. --+-

19Copy pinpoint19. Hence, we cannot agree with the views of the Courts below that any fraud took place in the auction sale. E ~

20Copy pinpoint20. Moreover, whenever anyone goes to buy some prop- erty in an auction sale, the person proposing to bid always makes enquiries about the properties for which he is propos- ing to make the bid. In fact, he will in all probability inspect the said property/assets, and he will not make any bid without mak- ing thorough enquiries about the said properties/assets. Hence, we are of the opinion that all the bidders in the auction knew what they were bidding for. Respondent No. 9 never partici- pated in the auction and we fail to understand how he could • start objecting to the auction more than one year after the same was confirmed.

21Copy pinpoint21. The other reasoning of the learned Single Judge by ~- which he set aside the confirmation of the sale is that the com- pany was entitled to incentives and benefits like sales tax ex- H emption and modvat. The learned Single Judge has observed

VALJI KHIMJI & COMPANY v. OFFI. LIQUIDATOR OF HINDUSTAN 9 NITRO PRO. (GUJARAT) LTD. & ORS. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.]

that the company M/s. Hindustan Nitro Product (Gujarat) Lim- A ited had made huge investments in development of an effluent treatment plant, and received permission for supply of gas for fuel from GAIL. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the intangibl~ assets were required to be considered while fix- . ing the value of the property. B

22Copy pinpoint22. We fail to understand how all this is relevant at all. Af- ter all, what was being sold was the assets of the company, and not the shares of the company, and these assets were fully de- scribed in the sale notice. c 23 ..,The learned Single Judge in our opinion also wrongly observed that while doing the valuation the potential of the com- pany was overlooked. Such potential has really no relevance in ~ our opinion.

24Copy pinpoint24. The learned Single Judge has observed that the valu- D ation was made as if the assets of the company to be sold were scrap, and instead the valuation should have been done as if it was a going concern. We have-already observed above that this observation is really based on no material as there is noth- ing to show that the valuation of the assets was done as if they E were scrap.

25Copy pinpoint25. The learned Division Bench in its impugned judgment has broadly adopted the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. Hence for the same reason given above the judgment of the learned Division Bench also cannot be sustained. F

26Copy pinpoint26. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sundaram has re- lied upon the decision of this Court in Mis Kayjay Industries (P) Ltd vs. Mis. Asnew Drums (P) Ltd & Ors. (1974) SCC 213 in which it was observed that mere inadequacy of price cannot demolish ev- G ery court sale. The Court also observed in para 7, as under:

"If Court sales are too frequently adjourned with a view to obtaining a still higher price it may prove a self-defeating exercise, for industrialists will lose faith in the actual sale taking place and may not care to travel up to the place of H

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A auction being uncertain that the sale would at all go through"

27Copy pinpoint27. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a decision of this Court in Divya Manufacturing ' Company (P) Ltd. etc. vs. Union Bank of India & Ors. etc. (2000) 6 SCC 69. We have carefully perused the above deci- B sion and we find that it is clearly distinguishable.

28Copy pinpoint28. The facts of the case were that at the initial stage the appellant offered 37 lakhs for purchasing the property in ques- tion. At the intervention of the court the price was raised to 1.3 c crores, and ultimately it was found that the property could be sold for Rs.2 crores. It was on these facts that this Court held that even after confirmation of the sale the same could be set aside.

29Copy pinpoint29. Thus, the ratio in Divya Manufacturing Company (P) j

D Ltd. (supra) was that if there is fraud then even after the confir- mation the sale can be set aside because it is well-settled that fraud vitiates everything. On the facts of that case, the Court was of the view that that confirmed sale deserved to be set aside. E

30Copy pinpoint30. In our opinion the decision of this Court in Divya Manu- facturing Company (P) Ltd. (supra) cannot be treated as laying down any absolute rule that a confirmed sale can be set aside in all circumstances. As observed by one of us (Hon. Katju, -J.) in his judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4908/2008 Dr Rajbir Singh F Dalal vs. Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa & Anr pro- nounced on 6.8.2008), a decision of a Courj cannot be -treated as Euclid's formula and read and understood mechatrical~y. A deci.sion must be considered on the facts of that particular case.

31Copy pinpoint31. If it is held that every confirmed sale can be set aside the result would be that no auction sale will ever be complete because always somebody can come after the auction or its )...,, confirmation offering a higher amount.

32Copy pinpoint32. It could have been a different matter if the auction had H

VALJI KHIMJI & COMPANY v. OFFI. LIQUIDATOR OF HINDUSTAN 11 NITRO PRO. (GUJARAT) LTD. & ORS. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.]

~ been held without adequate publicity in well-known newspapers having wide circulation, but where the auction sale was done after wide publicity, then setting aside the sale after its confir- mation will create huge problems. When an auction sale is ad- vertised in well-known newspapers having wide circulation, all eligible persons can come and bid for the same, and they will be themselves be to blame if they do not come forward to bid at the time of the auction. They cannot ordinarily later on be al- ""' lowed after the bidding (or confirmation) is over to offer a higher price.

33Copy pinpoint33. Of course, the situation may be different if an auction c sale is finalized say for Rs.1 crore, and subsequently some- body turns up offering Rs. 10 crores. In this situation it is pos- sible to infer that there was some fraud because if somebody subsequently offers 10 crores, then an inference can be drawn that an attempt had been made to acquire that property/asset at a grossly inadequate price. This situation itself may indicate fraud or some collusion. However, if the price offered after the auction is over which is only a little over the auction price, that cannot by itself suggest that any fraud has been done. ... 34. In the present case we are satisfied that there is no fraud in the auction sale. It may be mentioned that auctions are · of two types - (1) where the auction is not subject to subse- quent confirmation and (2) where the auction is subject to sub- sequent confirmation by some authority after the auction is held. F

35Copy pinpoint35. In the first case mentioned above, i.e. where the auc- J. tion is not subject to confirmation by any authority, the auction is complete on the fall of the hammer, and certain rights accrue in favour of the auction purchaser. However, where the auction is subject to subsequent confirmation by some authority (under a G statute or terms of the auction) the auction is not complete and ./~~ no rights accrue until the sale is confirmed by the said authority. Once, however, the sale is confirmed by that authority, certain rights accrue in favour of the auction purchaser, and these rights cannot be extinguished except in exceptional cases such as H

12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A fraud. >-

36Copy pinpoint36. In the present case, the auction havil"'lg been confirmed on 30.7.2003 by the Court it cannot be set aside unless some fraud or collusion has been proved. We are satisfied that no fraud or collusion has been established by a~y one in this case. 8

37Copy pinpoint37. In view of the above, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgments and orders of the learned Single Judge ~· as well as the Division Bench dated 25.8.2005 and 26.8.2005. The confirmation of the auction sale dated 30.7.2003 in favour c of the appellant stands upheld. There ~hall be no order as to costs. D.G. Appeal allowed.