S. B. SINHA, CJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of an order dated 2-7-2001 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in company Application No. 521 of 2000. ( 2 ) THE short fact, which is required to be noticed, for the purpose of disposal of this appeal is that a winding up order was passed against M/s. L. D. Steels (Hyderabad) limited. The said company appears to have owned Ac. 3-00 of land situated in Nacharam, which is admittedly an industrial area. The iron and steel available with it is said to be to the tune of twenty tonnes. The value of the assets of the company is estimated at 250 lakh rupees. An auction was held wherein the fourth respondent herein made an offer of 81 lakh rupees. An objection thereto was filed by the appellant on the ground that the same was not sufficient to meet the liabilities of the company. In the aforementioned situation, the appellant herein was permitted to issue an advertisement for sale wherefor ninety days time was permitted. On 2-7-2001, when the matter came up before the learned Company Judge, a representation was made on behalf of the appellant herein that they had not received any information as to what had happened pursuant to the said notification. However, the learned Company Judge having believed that the appellant herein is not interested directed it to deposit 81 lakh rupees with the Official Liquidator. ( 3 ) MR. P. Badri Premnath, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that pursuant to the notification issued by the appellant an offer of 90 lakh rupees has been received. The learned Counsel would urge that the interest of the creditors should be given primacy and in that view of the matter, the interest of justice demands that the assets of the liquidated company be put on auction again. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in Union Bank of India v. Official Liquidator, H. C. of Calcutta, AIR 2000 SC 3642 . ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent, on the other hand, submits that his client has already deposited 20% of the bid amount. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent, on the other hand, submits that his client has already deposited 20% of the bid amount. The learned Counsel would contend that prior to permitting the appellant herein to issue a fresh auction notice, neither any notice was issued to his client nor any opportunity of hearing was given. The learned Counsel submits that the practice, in such a case, is that the buyer is put to notice before a fresh advertisement is directed to be issued. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if an opportunity is given to the appellant herein to put a fresh advertisement having regard to the fact that an offer of 90 lakh rupees has already been received. It is not in dispute that the value of the assets of the company has been estimated at 250 lakh rupees. It is beyond any cavil of doubt that the interest of the creditors should be uppermost in the mind of the Court before a sale is confirmed. In Union Bank of India (supra), the Apex Court has laid down criteria for putting in the assets of company to auction. In the aforementioned decision, it has been held that before sanctioning the sale of assets of a company under liquidation, the Court is required to exercise judicial discretion to see that properties are sold at a reasonable price. For deciding as to what would be reasonable price, the Apex Court held, valuation report of an expert is must. It has further been laid down that it is the duty of the Court to disclose the said valuation report to the secured creditors and other interested persons including the offerers. It is also the Court s duty to apply its mind to the valuation report to verify whether the report indicates reasonable market value of the property to be auctioned, even if objections are not raised. ( 6 ) THERE is no dispute before us that the fourth respondent or the Official Liquidator or any other person has not filed any application for recession of the order dated 5-2-2000 in terms whereof, as noticed hereinbefore, the Court directed the appellant to conduct the sale of assets of the company in liquidation. ( 6 ) THERE is no dispute before us that the fourth respondent or the Official Liquidator or any other person has not filed any application for recession of the order dated 5-2-2000 in terms whereof, as noticed hereinbefore, the Court directed the appellant to conduct the sale of assets of the company in liquidation. ( 7 ) IN this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and dispose of this appeal with the following directions:- (1) The appellant herein may be permitted to conduct the sale of assets of the company in liquidation wherefor it may issue a fresh notification; (2) Tenders received pursuant to the said notification shall be considered; (3) It goes without saying that the fourth respondent herein also may submit a fresh tender pursuant to the said notification; (4) The deposit made by the fourth respondent herein may be refunded. ( 8 ) WITH the aforementioned observations, the appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.