# Mrs. Jayshree Kailash Wani v. Official Liquidator

- **Citation:** (2024) 10 ILRA 18
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-10-25
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 963 of 2024
- **Bench:** Arun Bhansali, C.J. Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mrs-jayshree-kailash-wani-v-official-liquidator-51110
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Allahabad High Court RulesChapter VIII, Rule 5-Companies Act,1956Section 483-The assets of M/s Ganga
Asbestos
Cement
Pvt.
Ltd.
Under
liquidation, were auctioned via e-auction
in 2022 on an "as is where is and
whatever
there
is"
basis-Appellant
emerged as the highest bidder with a bid
of Rs. 51 crores and was required to
deposit the full amount within 60 days
from july 26,2023-After failing to meet the
initial deadline , she received a onemonth extension on 1 december 2023,
with a clear warning of no further
extensions-on September 2, 2024 the
appellant
filed
another
extension
application, citing undisclosed defects
on the auctioned land-this application
was rejected by the Company Judge on
12 Sep. 2024-the respondent stated that
auction
terms
clearly
allowed
site
inspection,
which
the
appellant
neglected-Held,
the
e-auction
terms
explicitly stated the "as is where is"
basis and the appellant had a chance to
inspect the property before bidding,
failure to deposit the bid amount despite
multiple
opportunities
constituted
a
breach of obligations-rewriting auction
terms to accommodate the appellant's
conditions
was
beyond
the
court's
domain-Hence, the court upheld the
rejection of time extension application,
emphasizing the appellant's negligence
and
the
binding
nature
of
auction
terms.(Para 1 to 28)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

18 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that the delay may be condoned and appeal
may be heard and decided on merit.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
aforesaid case relied by learned counsel for the
appellant, has held that Rules of Limitation are
not meant to destroy the right of the parties.
They are meant to see that parties do not resort
to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy
promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy
must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed
period of time. This case is not of any help to
the appellant for condoning delay of such a long
period. The relevant paragraph is extracted
here-in-below:-

"Rule of limitation are not meant to
destroy the right of parties. They are meant to
see that parties do not resort to dilatory
tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. the
object of providing a legal remedy is to repair
the damage caused by reason of legal injury.
Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such
legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury
so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted
time would never revisit. During efflux of time
newer causes would sprout up necessitating
newer persons to seek legal remedy by
approaching the courts. So a life span must be
fixed for each remedy. Unending period for
launching the remedy may lead to unending
uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law
of limitation is thus founded on public policy.
It is enshrined in the maxim Interest
reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the
general welfare that a period be putt to
litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to
destroy the right of the parties. They are meant
to see that parties do not resort to dilatory
tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The
idea is that every legal remedy must be kept
alive for a legislatively fixed period of time."

14. In view of above, the delay can be
condoned if sufficient ground is shown for
condonation of delay. However as indicated
above, what to say of sufficient ground, the
appellant has failed to show even a single
ground for condonation of such a long delay of
3107 days and destroy the right of parties. He
has even failed to disclose as to who was the
person on whose shoulder he has put the
burden of such a long delay even for the
period of four years after his death, therefore,
the grounds shown by the appellant are
nothing but a concocted story to get the delay
of such a long period condoned in the matter
of accident claim, in which he had contested
the case throughout and after affording
sufficient opportunity of hearing the tribunal
passed the impugned judgment and award.

15. In view of above and considering the
over all facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the view that the appellant has
failed to show that the appellant was
prevented from sufficient cause to file the
appeal and only excuses have been given,
therefore, the application for condonation of
delay is misconceived and liable to be
dismissed.

16. The application for condonation of
delay is dismissed.

17. Consequently, the appeal is
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 18
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Special Appeal No. 963 of 2024

Mrs. Jayshree Kailash Wani ...Appellant
Versus
Official Liquidator ...Respondent
10 All. Mrs. Jayshree Kailash Wani Vs. Official Liquidator
19
Counsel for the Appellant:
Amit Krishna

Counsel for the Respondent:
Arnab Banerji

A. Civil Law - Allahabad High Court RulesChapter VIII, Rule 5-Companies Act,1956Section 483-The assets of M/s Ganga
Asbestos
Cement
Pvt.
Ltd.
Under
liquidation, were auctioned via e-auction
in 2022 on an "as is where is and
whatever
there
is"
basis-Appellant
emerged as the highest bidder with a bid
of Rs. 51 crores and was required to
deposit the full amount within 60 days
from july 26,2023-After failing to meet the
initial deadline , she received a onemonth extension on 1 december 2023,
with a clear warning of no further
extensions-on September 2, 2024 the
appellant
filed
another
extension
application, citing undisclosed defects
on the auctioned land-this application
was rejected by the Company Judge on
12 Sep. 2024-the respondent stated that
auction
terms
clearly
allowed
site
inspection,
which
the
appellant
neglected-Held,
the
e-auction
terms
explicitly stated the "as is where is"
basis and the appellant had a chance to
inspect the property before bidding,
failure to deposit the bid amount despite
multiple
opportunities
constituted
a
breach of obligations-rewriting auction
terms to accommodate the appellant's
conditions
was
beyond
the
court's
domain-Hence, the court upheld the
rejection of time extension application,
emphasizing the appellant's negligence
and
the
binding
nature
of
auction
terms.(Para 1 to 28)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Llovegeet Dhuria Vs SBI & ors.(2022) 0
Supreme(P&H) 728

2.
S.K.Bakshi
Vs
PNB
&
ors.(2022)
0
Supreme(J&K) 731
3. M/s Kalyani(India) Pvt.Ltd. Vs PNB, Branch
Mgr. PNB(2024) Law Suit(Del) 176

4. Palika Towns LLP Vs St. of U.P. & ors.(2022) 7
ADJ 331(DB)

5. Neutral Citation No.-2024:AHC-LKO:68457

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. This intra-court appeal under
Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High
Court Rules read with Section 483 of the
Companies Act, 1956 is against the order
of the Company Judge dated 12.9.2024
whereby the Civil Misc. Application No.46
of 2024 preferred by the appellant seeking
extension of time to deposit the bid amount
in pursuance of the orders dated 26.7.2023
and 1.12.2023 of the Company Court was
rejected.

Facts

2. Broadly, the facts of the case are
that M/s Ganga Asbestos Cement Pvt. Ltd.
( In short 'Company') was directed to be
wound up by the Company Judge by order
dated 25.4.1995. Thereafter, the Company
Judge on 29.11.2022 directed for e-auction
of the assets of the company in liquidation
situate in Village Dariyapur, District
Raebareilly.

3. An e-auction notice came to be
published in the year 2022 for auctioning of
the land measuring 9.211 hectares or 92110
sq. meters containing a reserved price of
Rs.15 crores. As per the e-auction notice
the earnest money being 10% of the
reserved price was Rs.1.5 crores and the
date and the time of the inspection of the
demised property which was put to auction
was scheduled on 2.1.2023 and 3.1.2023
from 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. The date of
submitting the earnest money deposit was
20 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
9.1.2023 upto 5.00 p.m. and the bidding
was scheduled on 10.1.2023 upto 6.00 p.m.

4. The appellant herein, participated in
the e-auction and bidded for Rs. 51 crores
which was stated to be highest. On
26.7.2023 the bid of the appellant came to
be accepted by the Company Court and an
order is stated to have been passed in Misc.
Company Application No. 3 of 1995 on
26.7.2023 which is as under:-

"In
Re:
Civil
Misc.
Recall
Application No. 40 of 2023

Heard
Sri
Udayan
Nandan,
learned counsel for the applicant.

The
recall
application
is
misconceived and is hereby dismissed.

In Re: Civil Misc. Application
Nos. 36 and 37 of 2023

Sri
Shashi
Nandan,
learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Udayan
Nandan, learned counsel appearing for
M/s. Garnet Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Sri Amit
Krishna, learned counsel for Mrs. Jayshree
Kailash Wani and Sri Arnab Bannerji,
learned counsel for Official Liquidator are
present. Sri O.P. Mishra, Advocate has
also appeared for Kotak Mahindra Bank.

The
representatives
of
two
companies, M/s. Garnet Shelters Pvt. Ltd.
and Mrs. Jayshree Kailash Wani are
present in the chamber. The bidding was
made which was carried to several rounds
and finally bid was settled in favour of Mrs.
Jayshree Kailash Wani at Rs.51 crores.

The highest bidder is directed to
deposit the entire amount of the bid within
a period of 60 days from today failing
which the earnest money deposited shall be
forfeited.

The earnest money which is
deposited with Rail Tel Corporation of
India Ltd. by M/s. Garnet Shelters Pvt. Ltd.
shall stand refunded to the company, M/s.
Garnet Shelters Pvt. Ltd., within 15 days
from today along with interest.

The application nos. 36 and 37 of
2023 stand disposed of."

5. As per terms and conditions of the
e-auction as well as the order of the
Company Court dated 26.7.2023 in Misc.
Company Application No. 3 of 1995 the
appellant was requuired to deposit the
entire amount of the bid within a period of
60 days from the passing of the order dated
26.7.2023, failing which the earnest money
deposited was to be forfeited.

6. The appellant, thereafter, preferred
a Civil Misc. Time Extension Application
No.42 of 2023 before the Company Court
in Misc. Company Application No.3 of
1995 in which on 1.12.2023 the following
order was passed:-

"Order on Civil Misc. Time
Extension Application No.42 of 2023

Heard Sri Amit Krishna, learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri Arnab
Banerjee, learned counsel for the Official
Liquidator.

This is an application seeking
extension of time by the applicant who was
the highest bidder in the auction conducted
on 26th July, 2023. The applicant, being
the highest bidder, was required to deposit
the bid amount, within 60 days. The said
amount was not deposited by the applicant
within the time framed and this application
has been moved for seeking extension of
time.

This Court finds that the amount
was to be deposited by 25th September,
2023 and more than four months have
elapsed since the auction has taken place,
but the applicant has not deposited any
amount.
10 All. Mrs. Jayshree Kailash Wani Vs. Official Liquidator
21

As
a
last
opportunity,
the
applicant is granted one month's time to
deposit the entire amount, out of which,
half of the amount shall be deposited by
15th December, 2023 and balance amount
shall be deposited within next 15 days.

In
view
of
the
said
fact,
application stands disposed of.

It is made clear that no further
time will be granted to the applicant, in
case he fails to deposit the required
amount."

7.
Thereafter,
the
second
time
extension application came to be filed by
the appellant on 2.9.2024 seeking further
extension of time to deposit the bid amount
in pursuance of the order dated 26.7.2023
and 1.12.2023 passed by the Company
Court which came to be numbered as Civil
Misc. Application No.46 of 2023. The said
application was rejected by the Company
Judge on 12.9.2024.

8.
Questioning
the
order
dated
12.9.2024 rejecting the Time Extension
Application No. 46 of 2024 the present
intra-court appeal has been preferred by the
appellant.

Submission of counsel for Appellant

9. Sri Amit Krishna, learned counsel
for the appellant has sought to argue that
the order of the Company Judge rejecting
the Civil Misc. Application No.46 of 2024
for extension of the time to make the
payment of bid amount cannot be sustained
for a single moment inasmuch as the
Company Court has misconstrued the entire
case and has adopted an incorrect approach.
Elaborating the said submission, it has been
submitted that pursuant to the e-auction
notice, the appellant participated in the
auction. He was found to be the highest
bidder offering Rs.51 crores. According to
him the appellant has also deposited the
earnest money, however, due to the illhealth of the appellant he could not make
the site inspection of the demise property
which was scheduled on 2.1.2023 and
3.1.2023 however, when for the first time
spot inspection was made on 18.11.2023
then it was found that there existed a
drainage of Nagar Palika/Nagar Nigam,
Raebareilly which was utilized for flushing
the waste of AIMS, Raebareilly, which was
flowing in the middle of the auctioned land.
The total area/land on which the said
drainage was constructed is measuring
18,436 sq. feets. Apart from this, there also
existed one pond of about one bigha which
had already been allotted for fishery
purposes to individuals by the State
Government. Besides the same, there was a
substation of 33 KV of AIMS Raebareilly,
constructed in the middle of the auction
land. Submission is that the said aspects
were neither depicted nor disclosed in the
auction notice and it was rather element of
surprise for the appellant to know about the
existence of the same. Contention is that
had the appellant being apprised about the
said facts while mentioning in the e-auction
notice, he would have not participated in
the bid.

10. Reliance has also been placed
upon the decision in Llovegeet Dhuria v.
State Bank of India & Ors. 2022 0
Supreme (P & H) 728, S.K. Bakshi v.
Punjab National Bank & Ors, 2022 0
Supreme (J&K) 731 and M/s Kalyani
(India)
Private
Limited
v.
Punjab
National Bank; Branch Manager Punjab
National Bank 2024 Law Suit (Del) 176
so as to contend that the e-auction notice is
required to disclose all information and
suppression of any vital fact makes it fatal.
In nutshell, the submission is that on
22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
account of non-disclosure of the said vital
facts, fraud has been practised upon the
appellant.

11. In order to show bona fides it is
being argued that the appellant has
arranged the amount Rs.49,40,000,00/- and
the photocopy of the cheques have already
been appended along with the memo of the
appeal and the same would be paid in case
the said obstructions are removed from the
auctioned land. It is thus prayed that the
order of the learned Single Judge be set
aside and the appeal be allowed in toto.

Submission
of
counsel
for
Respondents

12. Countering the submissions of the
learned counsel for the appellant Sri Arnab
Banerjee, who appears for the Official
Liquidator, has submitted that the order of
the Company Judge needs no interference
in the present appeal. He has further
submitted that the appellant is a defaulter
and he is not entitled to any relief
whatsoever. Submission is that the eauction notice itself provided for grant of
opportunity for inspection and the date
fixed was on 2.1.2023 and 3.1.2023
between 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. and it was
always open for the appellant to have
inspected the premises in question and
thereafter participate in the auction as the
date of submission of the earnest money
was
9.1.2023
and
the
bidding
was
scheduled on 10.1.2023.

13. According to the counsel for the
Official Liquidator the terms and the
conditions of the e-auction itself provided
that the same was "AS IS WHERE IS AND
WHATEVER
THERE
IS
BASIS"
According to him once the appellant
participated in the bid with open eyes then
it is not open for him to resile and question
the auction proceedings.

14. Contention is that on 26.7.2023 the
bid of the appellant stood accepted by the
Company Judge, with the stipulation that
the bid amount was to be paid within a
period of 60 days from the said date failing
which the earnest money deposited shall
stand forfeited and thereafter on 1.12.2023,
another Time Extension Application No.42
of 2023 came to be preferred by the
appellant and on his request one more
opportunity was accorded to him to deposit
the entire amount out of which half of the
amount was to be deposited by 15.12.2023
and balance amount within next 15 days
with a clear stipulation that no further time
would be granted. However, the appellant
instead of honouring the undertaking given
before the Company Judge has now filed
another application seeking extension of
time for making the payments that too
conditional after a period of 9 months on
2.9.2023 which was not maintainable and it
has been rightly rejected by the Company
Judge. Therefore, the appellant is not
entitled to any relief and the appeal is to be
dismissed.

15. Before delving into the tenability
of the arguments advanced by the rival
parties, it would be apposite to reproduce
the relevant extract of the auction notice
and the terms and the conditions of the
auction notice:-

E-Auction Notice

"Pursuant
to
order
dated
29.11.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Judicature al Allahabad in M.C.A.
No. 3 of 1995, following immovable assets
(land) of M/s Ganga Asbestos Cement Ltd.
(In
Liquidation)
situated
at
Village
10 All. Mrs. Jayshree Kailash Wani Vs. Official Liquidator
23
Dariyapur, District - Raebareilly (U.P.)
will be put to sale on "as is where is basis
and whatever there is basis" through eauction.
Description
Assets
Reserved
Price (In
Rs.)

Earnest
Money
10% (In
Rs.)

Date and time
of Inspection

Land
measuring
9.211
hectare Or
92110
Sq.mtr.

15
Crores

1.50
Crores

02.01.2023 &
03.01.2023
(11:00 AM to
05:00 PM)

Date of submitting the E.M.D.
09.01 2023 upto 5.00 PM

Date of bidding:- 10.01.2023 up
to 06.00 PM.

All the details along with terms
and conditions of e-auction are available
on poral https://olauction.enivida.com of
M/s Rail Tail Corporation Ltd. For queries
with regard to said e-auction contact no. (i)
_________(ii)
________
&
(iii)01149606060. The details also available on
www.mca.gov.in (website of MCA)
RAJNEESH KUMAR SINGH
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR"
Terms and Conditions of Auction

"E-Auction bids are invited for
sale of movable / immovable properties of
M/s Ganga Asbestos Cement Ltd. (in
liquidation) by office of Official Liquidutor
(OL)Attached to Hon'ble Allahabad High
Court on "AS IS WHERE IS AND
WHATEVER THERE IS BASIS". It would
be deemed that by submitting the Bid
request, the bidder has made a complete
and careful examination of the Property
and has satisfied himself/itself of all the
relevant and material information in
relation to the Property. The Hon'ble High
Court has absolute right to accept or reject
the bid requestor adjourn, postpone, extend
the auction without assigning any reasons
whatsoever and no objections will accrue
in such an event. No encumbrances in
relation to the above mention properties
are known to OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR
(OL) and Hon'ble High Court vide its order
dated 29.11.2022 had authorized Railtel to
conduct
E-Auction
proceeding
and
interested bidders are requested to file
their bids on RailteleNivida portal i.e.
https://olauction.enivida.com."

16. We have heard the learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the record
carefully.

17. The facts are not in issue. It is not
in dispute that pursuant to the order dated
29.11.2022 of the Company Judge e-bids
were invited for sale of movable and
immovable properties of the company in
liquidation by the official liquidator. It is
also not in dispute that e-auction notice
came to be issued in the year 2022 for
auctioning the land (assets) of the company
in liquidation being land admeasuring
9.211 hectares or 92110 sq. meters, the
reserved price was Rs.15 crores and the
earnest money, being Rs.1.5 crores. In
order to enable bidders to have and over all
view 2.1.2023 and 3.1.2023 was that date
fixed for inspection of the premises in
question from 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. The
date of submission of the earnest money
deposit was 9.1.2023 upto 5.00 p.m. The
date of bidding was 10.1.2023 upto 6.00
p.m.

18. It is admitted to the appellant that
he participated in the e-auction and his bid
was found to be highest to the tune of
Rs.51 crores. On 26.7.2023 company court
accepted the bid of the appellant directing
him to deposit entire amount of the bid
within a period of 60 days from the said
24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
date failing which, the earnest money
deposited shall be forfeited.

19. The appellant preferred a Civil
Misc. Time Extension Application No.42
of 2023 before the Company Judge seeking
further time to deposit the bid amount. On
the said application, the Company Judge on
1.12.2023 as a last opportunity, granted one
months time to the appellant to deposit the
bid amount out of which the half was
directed to be deposited by 15.12.2023 and
the balance amount within next 15 days
with a clear stipulation that no further time
shall be allowed to the appellant in case he
fails to deposit the required amount. The
orders dated 26.7.2023 and 1.12.2023 has
attained finality, as it has been apprised to
the Court that the same has not to been put
to challenge. However, now after a period
of approximately nine months on 2.9.2024,
the second Time Extension Application
came to be filed by the appellant, Civil
Misc. Application No.46 of 2024 seeking
further time to deposit the bid amount
taking a stand that since the e-auction
notice did not disclose the facts that there
exist a drain, pond and a sub-station of the
electricity department, thus the appellant
was kept in dark and the appellant is
agreeable to make the payment of the entire
bid amount subject to removal of the
obstructions from the auction land. The
said application has been rejected.

20. Apparently, we find that the eauction notice itself provided for an
opportunity to the appellant to make an
inspection of the site in question on
2.1.2023 and 3.1.2023 i.e. much before the
date of the submission of the earnest money
i.e. 9.1.2023 and the date of the bid which
was on 10.1.2023. The terms and the
conditions of the e-auction itself contained
a stipulation that the auction was "AS IS
WHERE IS AND WHATEVER THERE IS
BASIS" and it would be deemed that by
submitting the bid request the bidder has
made a complete and careful examination
of
the
property
and
has
satisfied
himself/itself of all the relevant and
material information in relation to the
property.

21. Pertinently, the appellant for the
reasons best known to him had not made
physical inspection of the property in
question before auction, however, it has
come on record that for the very first time
inspection was conducted by the appellant
on 18.11.2023 as apparent from para 6 of
the application preferred seeking extension
of time to make deposit of the bid amount.

22. Certainly, for the inaction or
lethargy on the part of the appellant, the
respondent
cannot
be
held
to
be
responsible. Further more, once the terms
and the conditions as set forth in the eauction notice itself recites that the auction
"AS IS WHERE IS AND WHATEVER
THERE IS BASIS" then there is no
question of non disclosure of the vital fact.
Not only this, it is on the instance of the
appellant itself that the auction stood
settled in his favour by the Company Judge
on 26.7.2023 and by order dated 1.12.2023
whereby, on the request of the appellant
time was extended for a period of one
month to make the entire payments of the
bid amount. Once the said orders have been
passed on the request and the undertaking
of the appellant and have attained finality
then it does not lie in the mouth of the
appellant to question the auction.

23. A Division Bench of this Court in
Palika Towns LLP vs. State of U.P. and
others 2022 (7) ADJ 331 (DB) had the
occasion to interpret "AS IS WHERE IS
10 All. Mrs. Jayshree Kailash Wani Vs. Official Liquidator
25
AND WHATEVER THERE IS BASIS"
while holding as under:-

31. Apparently the words "AS IS
WHERE IS" finds its root in the common
law doctrine of "Caveat Emptor" which
means ''let the buyer beware'. This doctrine
puts the duty on the purchaser to carry out
all necessary inspection of the property
before entering into an agreement. If the
purchaser fails to conduct such an
inspection, then later, on identification of
defects in the property may not be a ground
to revoke or claim damages under the
contract. In such cases it is presumed that
the purchaser had the notice of defects, if
any.

32. Section 3 of the Transfer of
Property
Act
1882
incorporates
the
doctrine of constructive notice under
Section 3 which is read as under:-

"A person is said to have notice"
of a fact when he actually knows that fact,
or when, but for willful abstention from an
enquiry or search which he ought to have
made, or gross negligence, he would have
know it.

Explanation
II:
Any
person
acquiring any immovable property or any
share or interest in any such property shall
be deemed to have notice of the title, if any,
of any person who is for the time being in
actual possession thereof."

33. Nonetheless the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, also envisages the duty
of the seller to disclose to the buyer any
material defect in the property or in the
seller's title thereto of which the seller is,
and the buyer is not, aware, and which the
buyer could not with ordinary care
discover. This is, however, subject to the
presence of contract to contrary between
the parties.

34. Now, another facet needs to
be examined as to what are the types of
defects which a buyer is expected to inquire
into before purchasing the property. There
are two types of defects namely latent
defects and patent defects. Latent defects
are such type of defects which are unlikely
to be discovered by a purchaser during
investigation. On the other hand, the
second category is patent defects which are
discoverable if the buyer would have
carried out inspection. Here in the present
case the defects falls under the second
category, being patent defects as Court
finds that on 24.09.2018 the public
announcement was made by Liquidator
inviting claims due from the Corporate
Debtor wherein in item no. 5 the details of
the demised premises in question was
given. Further the sale notice for assets of
the Corporate Debtor was also published
which is annexure- 4 at page no. 45
wherein again description of the land was
given. It is a matter of common knowledge
that whenever a property is being sought to
be sold through auction and the reserve
price runs into crores of rupees (which in
the present case is 145.67 crores) then it is
clearly expected that purchaser might have
got carried out inspection of the title deed
as well as of the liabilities attached to it.
The petitioner herein is a registered
liability
partnership
company
duly
registered with Government of India
Ministry of Corporate Affairs and thus, it
becomes
highly
implorable
and
inconceivable that the petitioner was not
having knowledge about the liability of the
Corporate Debtor. The present case can
also be analyzed from another point of
angle that the petitioner is not a illiterate
person but the presumption is that legal
option is freely accessible to it. It is not a
case wherein the demised premises which
is being put to auction is in remote part of
the country or there is no via media of
getting internal details of the Corporate
26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Debtor and its liabilities particularly when
it is a matter of common knowledge that
once the demised land is leasehold then
obviously
an
intending
party
would
approach the lessor to get the details with
respect to title and position of lease rentals.
In other words, this Court cannot peep into
mind of the petitioner so as to perceive as
to whether any investigation was conducted
at the level of intending party or to what
extent.

24. So far as the reliance placed upon
the judgements in Llovegeet Dhuria
(Supra), S.K. Bakshi (Supra) and M/s
Kalyani (India) Private Limited (Supra)
are concerned, they are not applicable in
the facts of the case as the issue involved in
those cases was relatable to a pending
litigation at the instance of the secured
creditor which was not disclosed in the
auction notice. However, in the present
case, there is no dispute to the ownership
and the title of the land in question.

25. Nonetheless, the present case is a
classic
example
of
approbating
and
reprobating at the same time while resiling
from an obligation which stood entered at
the own volition of the appeal.

26. As regards the submission that the
appellant is ready to deposit the bid amount
subject to the removal of the obstructions
from the auction land is concerned, the
same cannot be accepted for the simple
reason that it is not within the domain of
the Court to re-write the terms and the
conditions of the auction which stood
settled between the parties.

27. Viewing the case from all the
points of angle, we are of the firm opinion
that order of the Company Judge dated
12.9.2024
passed
in
Civil
Misc.
Application No.46 of 2024 in Company
Misc. Application No.3 of 1995 does not
suffer from any legal infirmity so as to
warrant interference in the appeal.

28.
Resultantly,
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 26
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 7076 of 2021

Samrah Ahmad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
Aditya Bhushan Singhal, C.S.C., Pranjal
Mehrotra

Civil Law - Service Law - Recruitment -
U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) and U.P. Jal Nigam
(Rural) - Segregation of tainted and
untainted candidates - Appointment of
Unblemished Candidates - Rejection of
Tainted Candidates - Corporation annulled
the entire selection and appointment of
RGC, AE, JE on the ground that entire
selection process stood compromised and
it was very difficult to trace out and
explain as to at what stage and in what
manner manipulations had taken place
and it was difficult to identify as to who
were the untainted candidates. Issue:
Whether material discussed in the orders
impugned were cogent enough to reach
out to a conclusion that entire selection
process
in
respect
of
vacancies
of
AE/JE/RGC in question was so much
compromised that there left no possibility