M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.

These three intracourt appeals have arisen from the orders of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in Company Application No.2107 of 2008 and Company Application Nos.1238 and 1239 of 2009 respectively.

2.The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.

3.C.A.No.1238 of 2009 was filed to stay all further proceedings in the auction, while C.A.No.1239 of 2009 was to set aside the auction proceedings under the following facts and circumstances:

(a) Seeking winding up of the company, the first respondent therein made CP No.78 of 2008 on the ground that a sum of Rs.8,79,035/- was due as on 212. 2007, and the company was unable to pay the same. The applicant could not pay the amount immediately on receipt of the summons; but the applicant has made part payments to the first respondent on various dates and has settled the entire amount due to the first respondent in full quit, and a sum of Rs.45000/-was paid to the Counsel for the first respondent on 28. 2009, in the open Court as last balance. Under such circumstances, the above company petition was not pressed.

(b) Theapplicant was also ready and willing to deposit the amount due to the Official Liquidator, the second respondent therein, who has made excessive claims. If the dues to the Official Liquidator were paid, nothing survives in C.P.No.78 of 2008, and the company petition was liable to be dismissed.

(c) An order of winding up came to be passed on 12. 2008. The Official Liquidator, who was initially appointed as Provisional Liquidator, was later on appointed as Official Liquidator of the company. The Official Liquidator must have got the sanction of the Court to sell the properties; but, he has not asked for the sale of the properties of the company in liquidation in auction. The Court directed him to invite tenders as the company has not paid Rs.25,08,395/- due to the Official Liquidator.

(d) On 12. 2009, the Court directed the company in liquidation to pay a sum of Rs.25,08,395/-on or before 3. 2009. It was represented by the Counsel for the company that the company was unable to pay that amount. Hence a direction was issued to the Official Liquidator to proceed with the sale as per the order dated 12. 2008. Thereafter, tenders were invited for the sale of the properties of the company in liquidation as per the orders of the Court fixing the last date as 27. 2009. Though the Official Liquidator was directed to invite tenders for the purchase of the properties, no specific sanction or direction was given to him for sale of the properties. By order dated 26. 2009, the Court ordered to sell the properties for a sum of Rs.25,08,395/-, but no sanction was given to sell the properties in entirety for the amount due to the other creditors in the order dated 26. 2009. A misrepresentation was made that the order of the Court was to sell the entire immovable and movable properties of the company in liquidation.

(e) The valuation was not properly done. The properties were situate in prime locality, and therefore, the value of the property was Rs.3.5 lakhs per cent approximately. But the value quoted by the Official Liquidator at Rs.1 lakh was very low. It is a case in which global tenders should have been called for fixing the upset price at Rs.200 crores. There was violation of provisions of law while bringing the properties into auction. The description of properties with survey numbers and boundaries, the amount due for which sale was ordered and the encumbrance to the properties have not been specifically mentioned.

(f) As far as the banks were concerned, they were holding a decree made by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and appeals have been preferred before the Appellate Tribunal. Hence the debts due to the banks stood under dispute, and they could not participate in the proceedings before the Company Court. As far as the movables were concerned, their claim was a disputed debt, and no finality was reached in respect of their claim. Hence th