Dismissed

M/s rupa Steels Ltd., (In Liqn) v. Industrial Development Bank of India

Telangana HC22 Mar 2012COMPA/295/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the application of a company under liquidation. The applicant sought direction to appoint a new valuer for company land and buildings. The court held that since the secured creditor (IDBI) had recently obtained a valuation report valuing the property significantly higher than previous offers, re-valuation was unnecessary. The Official Liquidator was directed to proceed usi

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; Official Liquidator directed to proceed with asset sale relying on the valuation report obtained by the 1st respondent.

M/s rupa Steels Ltd., (In Liqn) Vs Industrial… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN COMPANY APPLICATION No.295 OF 2012 IN COMPANY PETITION No.175 of 1998 & 92 of 1999

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This application is filed by the company under liquidation, represented by the Official Liquidator, seeking a direction from this Court to appoint a Registered Chartered Valuer for survey/verificationcum-valuation of the company’s land admeasuring Ac.35.48 cents in Gat No.161 and 162, old Sy. No.22 & 25 and buildings situated at Itkal village, Tuljapur Taluq, Osmanabad District near Sholapur, Maharashtra from the panel maintained by the office of the Official Liquidator.

¶4

Both the secured creditors are arrayed as respondents in this application. An affidavit is filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent stating that, in so far as this extent of Ac.35.48 cents is concerned, the Tahsildar, Tuljapur Taluq was requested to conduct a survey but no report had been submitted so far; the offer in respect of lands and buildings situated at Itkal village was rejected by this Court in Company Application No.1938 of 2011 as a higher public offer was received; this Court directed the Official Liquidator to get the property valued from the panel of valuers and, accordingly, the liquidator had filed the present application. It is further stated that this Court had suggested that the secured creditor could appoint a valuer from their panel, as the assets are secured/charged in their favour; on enquiry it was found that the said property had been valued recently by M/s. Subha Syndicate, Hyderabad (a panel valuer of I.D.B.I) who submitted the report on 28.02.2012 and, as per the valuation, the Fair Market value of the land of 35.48 acres at Itkal Unit, together with buildings

¶5

thereon, is Rs.3,32,63,000/-; its realisable value is Rs.2,74,09,000/-; and its distress value is Rs.2,36,57,000/-.

¶6

Sri P.V. Markandeyulu, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of both the respondents, would state that the principal amount due to IDBI is 620 lakhs and IIBI is Rs.244 lakhs. Since 3/4^th of the total principal amount of the secured debt is due to the 1^st respondent, who has got the property valued as recently as on 28.02.2012, I consider it wholly unnecessary for the company under liquidation to now incur additional expenditure to have the property re-valued. On the basis of the valuation report given to IDBI by one of the approved valuers, the Official Liquidator may take appropriate action for inviting bids for the sale the assets as even the distress value of the property is valued at Rs.2,36,57,000/- which is far higher than the previous offer received of Rs.1,27,00,000/-. Leaving it open to the Official Liquidator to act in accordance with the valuation report of the approved valuer of IDBI (1^st respondent), who along with IIBI has exclusive charge over the properties in question, Company Application No.295 of 2012 is dismissed.

¶7

Date: 22.03.2012 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR

M/s rupa Steels Ltd., (In Liqn) v. Industrial Development Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s rupa Steels Ltd., (In Liqn) v. Industrial Development Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Gir Movers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s Novopan Industries Ltd. IDa Phase-Ii

M/s People Combine Amenities Private Limited Vs -

M/s People Combine Hospitalities Private Limited Vs -

M/s.Nsl Sez (Chennai) Private Limited. Vs -

M/s Bhairavnath Poultry Farms Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Official Liquidator

The Official Liquidator, Vs Sri Ganji Sreenivasulu