Allowed¶26

Official Liquidator of Glodyne Technoserve Ltd. (in Liquidation) v. L and T Finance Ltd. (Petitioner)

Bombay HC6 Aug 2025OLR/49/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Confirmation of sale of vehicle in liquidation — Glodyne Technoserve Ltd (In Liqn.), OLR 49/2025 in CP 179/2013, Companies Act 1956, Bombay High Court — bids of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 16,000 opened in Court for Toyoto Innova-2.5V MH-14-BC-7674 — sale confirmed to highest bidder M/s. JD Enterprises — no re-advertisement owing to 2011 make, OL possession since 2016 and prohibitive advertisement cost — handover on receipt of sale proceeds — EMD refund to unsuccessful bidder — Sharmila U. Deshmukh J, July 24, 2025.

What did the court decide?

OLR allowed: sale of Toyoto Innova-2.5V (Regn. No. MH-14-BC-7674) confirmed in favour of highest bidder M/s. JD Enterprises; Official Liquidator to hand over the vehicle on receipt of sale proceeds and return the EMD to the unsuccessful bidder. ¶26

Official Liquidator of Glodyne Technoserve Ltd. (in… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Prayer (a): whether the Court should peruse the two offers received and confirm the sale of the TOYOTO INNOVA-2.5V (Regn. No. MH-14BC-7674) in favour of the highest bidder, permitting the Official Liquidator to hand over the car on receipt of sale proceeds. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

Since the car is of 2011 make and has been in the Official Liquidator's possession since 2016, it is not possible to obtain a higher valuation even if re-advertised, and the cost of advertisement would be prohibitive for a vehicle of 2011 make.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Prayer clause (a) is granted: the sale of the vehicle is confirmed in favour of M/s. JD Enterprises, the highest bidder.

¶25

Key takeaways

The Official Liquidator is directed to complete the formalities and hand over the vehicle to JD Enterprises upon receipt of the sale proceeds, and to return the EMD amount to the unsuccessful bidder.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, O.O.C.J. (Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.; July 24, 2025) — Official Liquidator's Report No. 49 of 2025 in Company Petition No. 179 of 2013 (Companies Act, I of 1956) — Glodyne Technoserve Ltd (In Liqn.). The Official Liquidator sought directions for disposal of a Toyoto Innova-2.5V (Regn. No. MH-14-BC-7674). Two bids opened in Court: Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 16,000/-. Held: the car being of 2011 make and in the Official Liquidator's possession since 2016, no higher valuation was possible even on re-advertisement, and advertisement costs would be prohibitive; prayer (a) granted — sale confirmed in favour of the highest bidder, M/s. JD Enterprises; Official Liquidator to complete formalities, hand over the vehicle on receipt of sale proceeds, and refund the EMD to the unsuccessful bidder.

¶1

16-OLR-49-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR’S REPORT NO. 49 OF 2025 IN

¶4

COMPANY PETITION NO. 179 OF 2013

¶5

TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO

¶6

Digitally signed by TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Date: 2025.07.30 13:52:00 +0530

¶7

L & T Finance Ltd.

¶8

In the matter of the Companies Act, I of 1956.

¶9

AND

¶10

In the matter of Glodyne Technoserve Ltd ( In Liqn.);

¶11

… Petitioner

¶12

Ms. Akansha Agrawal Adv for Official Liquidator. Mr. Satyajit Roul, Official Liquidator present. Mr. V. G. Nipane Deputy Official Liquidator present.

¶13

——————

¶14

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : July 24, 2025.

¶15

P. C. :

¶16

1. The Official Liquidator Report seeks the following directions:

¶17

“(a) In view of para 16 of this report, whether this Hon’ble Court would be pleased to peruse the said two (2) offers and pass necessary order confirming the sale of said TOYOTO INNOVA-2.5V Registration No. MH-14BC-7674, car in favour of highest bidder and permit the Official Liquidator to handover the car to the highest bidder/auction purchaser on receipt of the sale proceeds or otherwise;

¶18

(b) If prayer (a) above is in negative, and in view of para 17 of this report, whether this Hon’ble Court would be pleased to permit the Official Liquidator to make one more attempt to invite the offers for TOYOTO INNOVA2.5V Registration No. MH-14-BC-7674, from second hand vehicle dealers by issuing individual notice to the

¶19

1 of 2

¶20

Shubham

¶21

16-OLR-49-2025.doc

¶22

usual dealers instead of publication of sale notice. The Official Liquidator may also be permitted to put the offers received before this Hon’ble Court by filing report for confirmation of sale.”

¶23

2. Pursuant to previous orders passed by this Court the Official Liquidator invited bids from second hand dealers for the purchase of the vehicle Toyoto Innova-2.5V Registration No. MH-14-BC-7674. The bids were open in the Court. There were two bids one was for Rs. 10,000/- and other was for Rs. 16,000/-.

¶24

3. Considering that the make of the car is of the year 2011 and the Official Liquidator had taken possession of the car in 2016, in my view, it is not possible to obtain higher valuation even if the same is re advertised. The cost of advertisement would also be prohibitive in respect of vehicle of the year 2011.

¶25

4. In light of the above, prayer clause (a) is granted by confirming the sale in favour of the M/s. JD Enterprises who is the highest bidder.

¶26

5. The Official Liquidator is directed to complete the formalities and hand over vehicle to the JD Enterprises upon receipt of the sale proceeds. OLR stands allowed in the above terms. The Official Liquidator is directed to return EMD amount to the unsuccessful bidder.

¶27

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

¶28

2 of 2

¶29

Shubham

Official Liquidator of Glodyne Technoserve Ltd. (in Liquidation) v. L and T Finance Ltd. (Petitioner)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Official Liquidator of Glodyne Technoserve Ltd. (in Liquidation) v. L and T Finance Ltd. (Petitioner)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Maniben Patel and Ors. vs Tirupati Developers Through its Partners

Lokesh Ramnath Ramgude vs Airport Authority of India Thr. Radhakrishna Eviction Officer and Anr.

Jehangir Jamshed Guzder vs Cyrus Jamshed Guzder

Gogi Kaur Keer Alias Daljit Tarvinder Keer vs Inderjit Singh Amardeep Chadha Alias Supremo Chadha

Mac Laboratories Ltd. and Anr. vs Rubicon Formulation Pvt. Ltd.

Veeramaneni Venugopalrao vs Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.