Interference with the sale of company properties can only occur in cases of total irregularity or violation of statutory provisions. The Company Court has a duty to ensure a reasonable price for the property and may require a valuation report.

P.JYOTHIMANI,J.

1. These appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the applications filed by the appellant, to wit Mettur Textiles Mill Quarters Residents Welfare Society, on the ground that the appellant/society has been whiling away its time from 2009 when an advertisement was issued for sale of properties of the company under liquidation relating to Item No.7 comprising of 33.03 Acres of land and has approached the Court belatedly when the sale was confirmed by the Company Court in favour of the second respondent, being the highest bidder, for a sale consideration of Rs.12,50,00,000/-.

2.1. Succinctly put, the facts leading to the filing of these appeals are that the Mettur Textiles Industries Limited, which has been wound up, was taken over by the Official Liquidator and sale has been effected in respect of various lots of properties and adjudication in respect of the claims of the workmen and other creditors is being done by the Official Liquidator. These appeals relate to one of the properties which is listed as Item No.7, which is land to the extent of 33.03 Acres situated in Mettur Dam, Salem District. It is seen that from the year 2008 onwards, through the Official Liquidator, the Company Court has taken steps for the purpose of sale of the said item of land and there were no bidders in respect of the said property.

2.2. It appears that by an advertisement dated 13.2.2012 published in the newspapers on 19.2.2012 by the Official Liquidator as per the direction of the Company Court, item No.7 anent 33.03 Acres of land was included in the auction notice by fixing the upset price at Rs.6,11,64,000/-. It is based on the said advertisement various persons, including the second respondent, participated in the auction conducted by the Company Court, and ultimately the second respondent was declared to be the highest bidder for the sale consideration of Rs.12,50,00,000/-and the sale has been confirmed by the Company Court in the order dated 8.3.2012.

2.3. It was on the brink of auction process the appellant has filed two applications, to wit

(i) C.A.No.242 of 2012 for the purpose of grant of stay of the auction notice dated 19.2.2009; and (ii) C.A.No.243 of 2012 to enjoin the Official Liquidator from bringing the said property, to wit 33 Acres of land situated at Mettur Dam, Salem District, for sale in future, and these applications came to be dismissed by the learned Judge under the impugned order, as stated above.

3. The Official Liquidator has filed his report. In the report, he has clearly stated that the bidding was effected in the Court and even though the upset price was fixed at Rs.6,11,64,000/-, various people participated and ultimately the second respondent has raised the bid to Rs.12.50 Crores and the Court has declared the second respondent as the highest bidder and confirmed the sale in its favour. The Official Liquidator has also stated that around 3000 claims have been received from the creditors of the company under liquidation and adjudication process is on.

4. It is no doubt true that the learned Single Judge has stated that the applications have been filed by the appellant behindhand. But, on facts, it is beyond any cavil that the appellant, which is stated to be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, was incorporated only on 29.2.2012 and after such incorporation, the appellant/society resolved on 2.3.2012 to authorize its President, who happened to be one of the erstwhile employees of the company under liquidation during 1990, to approach this Court regarding the sale of Item No.7 of the auction notice and on hearing the appellant as well as the other parties, the Company Court has passed an order confirming the sale in favour of the second respondent.

5. The claim of the appellant, as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, that the members of the appellant/society, being the erstwhile employees of the