Petitioner sought refund of Rs.11 lakh deposited as bid money in a company appeal. High Court held that filing application with counsel satisfied identification requirements and ordered refund if petitioner submitted a bid.
The petitioner shall be identified by his counsel; if he submitted a bid, the deposited amount with interest shall be refunded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN COMPANY APPLICATION No.352 OF 2012 IN COMPANY APPEAL No.4 OF 2007
ORDER:
This Company Application is filed by Sri K.D.V.Prasad requesting this Court to direct the Registry to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner i.e., Rs.11,00,000/- in terms of the order passed by this Court in Company Appeal No.4 of 2007 dated 13.03.2008, along with interest accrued thereon, as the said amount was kept in the Bank as per the directions of this Court.
In the order passed by this Court, in Company Appeal No.4 of 2007 dated 13.03.2008, it was held that since bids had been received by the Advocate Commissioner from several persons and the money received had been deposited in the High Court Registry pursuant to the interim orders passed during the pendency of the appeal, it was but appropriate that the amount received either from the highest bidder, or from the unsuccessful bidders, be returned to them. The High Court Registry was directed, on such persons being identified by their respective counsel, to return the money received from them by way of an account payee cheque drawn in their favour.
The objection raised by the Registry is with regards persons being identified by their respective counsel as the applicant in Company Application No.352 of 2012 was not one among the parties to the proceedings in Company Appeal No.4 of 2007 and batch. This Court is given to understand, by the Registry, that the amount received towards each of the bids have been kept in a separate fixed deposit; and interest accrues thereon. Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the applicant, would state that an
application was filed in the Registry, along with the Vakalat of the counsel; and that, itself, amounted to compliance with the directions of this Court.
I see no reason to delve any further on this aspect as it would suffice if the applicant is identified by Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing on his behalf in the present application. The applicant shall be identified by Sri N.Subba Rao, Learned counsel, before the competent officer in the High Court Registry. In case the applicant herein had submitted a bid in C.A.No.4 of 2007, which has been kept in a separate fixed deposit by the High Court Registry, the said amount shall be refunded to the applicant under due acknowledgement of both the applicant and Sri N.Subba Rao, his counsel.
The Company Application is disposed of accordingly.
_____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J
27.03.2012 KH
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible to avail refund of amount deposited by way of bid in a company appeal.
Whether the filing of an application in the Registry along with Vakalat amounts to compliance with directions to refund deposited money.
K.D.V.Prasad
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
