deposited and the transaction stood concluded. No doubt, the bid of Respondent No.3 would result in realizing an amount of Rs.1.16 crores (approx.) more for the property in question and that would enure to the benefit of the creditors of the company. At the same time, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant would be entitled to refund of the amount deposited with interest accrued thereon. Thus, the OL would lose the interest on the amount deposited by the Appellant upto 09.04.2019. Moreover, financial gain that may result, cannot be the sole criteria for deviating from the sale process. The auction reserve price for the sale of the property was fixed after taking into consideration the valuation report of the valuer of Punjab National Bank and, therefore, the offer of the Appellant which was accepted was in conformity with the auction reserve price so fixed. The objection of the Respondent No.1 regarding the property being undervalued is without merit, since neither Respondent No 3 nor any bidder came with a substantially higher offer. The difference in the amount offered by the Appellant, and that offered by Respondent No.3 is not more than 5%. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions i.e. Valji Khimji and Co (supra) and Navlakha and Sons (supra) has carved out an exception of fraud for annulling the bidding process. The Court has observed that if subsequent to an auction, an offer is made, which is substaintially higher than what has been finalized, the situation may indicate fraud or some collusion. However, if the price offered is only little over the auction price, that cannot, by itself, suggest that fraud has been done. Concededly, in the present case, the difference between the two bids is only about Rs.1.16 crores which is not more than 5 % of the bid amount of the Appellant. Hence, the reopening of the auction bid of the Appellant, was improper and unlawful and the
