JUDGMENT 1. - In this application under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, the petitioner has prayed for grant of permission to him for sell the securities of the Company (in liquidation) on which the respondent financial institutions and the bank have the first charge and which are registered with the Registrar of companies so as to full and final satisfaction of their dues against the company (in liquidation) and for payment of the workmen's dues and the surplus, if any, be allowed to be paid to the other creditors in terms of what has been mentioned in the present application. 2. The petitioner was one of the promoter directors of the company (in liquidation). The company (in liquidation) was ordered to be wound up by this court vide order dated 20th of July, 2001 in company petition No. 15/ 93. It is stated that in the process of negotiation the petitioner has searched a prospective buyer to purchase all the charged assets in the sum of Rs. 8 crores. On this application the court straight away not granted this permission, as prayed for. The court was of the opinion that its reserve price is fixed eight crore rupees and the assets of the company (in liquidation) be put to the public auction as to get the maximum price thereof. In the petition the prospective buyer searched by the petitioner has been impleaded as the respondent No. 6. 3. The respondent No. 6 has given offer for purchase of the assets of the company (in liquidation) on the condition of defer payment of the cost of Rs. eight crore. As the company (in liquidation) was not having the fund for meeting out the expenses of inviting tenders the respondent No. 2 ICICI was directed to deposit amount of Rs. four lakhs with the Official Liquidator to meet out the expenses, with the clear understanding that this amount shall be returned to it from the sale proceeds of the assets of the company (in liquidation). 4. Accordingly the Official Liquidator invited tenders vide notification which was published in the Economic Times (all editions). Indian Express (Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad Editions) and Rajasthan Patrika (all editions in Rajasthan). 5. 4. Accordingly the Official Liquidator invited tenders vide notification which was published in the Economic Times (all editions). Indian Express (Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad Editions) and Rajasthan Patrika (all editions in Rajasthan). 5. In response to this notice, the Official Liquidator received the tenders, the details of which are as under : S.No. Name and address of Tenderer Offer received for Lot Numbers Amount offered for Lot Entire Unit E.M.D. Deposited 1 M/s. Umardaraj & Sons Delhi III 1,21,000 10000 2 M/s. Machinery House, Faridabad III 1,10,000 10000 3 M/s. Reena Steels, Ghaziabad III 51000 10000 4 M/s. A.D.R. Steel Corp., Ghaziabad II 71,00,786 1,00,000 5 M/s. Vinay Singh, Faridabad II & III 65,00,000 95000 10,10,000 6 M/s. Shri Giriraj Enterprises, Ghaziabad II & III 71,57,555 10,10,000 7 Shri Anurag Jaipuria, Delhi IV 5,01,00,000 25,00,000 6. Respondent No. 6, Jai Drinks Private Limited has given offer on 1st of August, 2003 for the purchase of entire unit of the company (in liquidation), Its offer of Rs. eight crores is conditional, defer payment in interest free instalments. If we go by this conditional offer given by this company of purchase of the entire assets which includes all costs, charges, duties, levy, sales tax, other expenses, shall stand fully paid after six and half years. Possession of the entire assets of the company (in liquidation) is to be given and the documents are to be executed on payment of Rs. one crore as per conditional offer of this company. 7. During the course of arguments it is given out by the counsel for the financial institutions that the matter for recovery of their dues against the company (in liquidation) has been finally decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in their favour. What it is stated may mean that they are free to apply to the court for orders to remain out of liquidation proceedings. As and when such a request is made to the Official Liquidator the same may be placed before me for consideration and appropriate orders. 8. I have my own reservations whether the company shall stand to his commitment in future. It will get entire assets of the company (in liquidation) on payment of rupees one crore and there cannot be any guarantee that it shall stand to its commitments made in the offer. 8. I have my own reservations whether the company shall stand to his commitment in future. It will get entire assets of the company (in liquidation) on payment of rupees one crore and there cannot be any guarantee that it shall stand to its commitments made in the offer. That apart in the notice inviting the tenders it was not mentioned that the court may permit the defer payment of the sale price of the assets of the company (in liquidation). 9. I have no doubt in mind that in case it would have been made clear there is the possibility of getting better offers. So, in these facts and circumstances, this offer given by respondent No. 6 Jai Drinks Private Limited cannot be accepted in the interest of the creditors of the company (in liquidation). 10. As regards to other offers, the same are very low and assets of the company (in liquidation) cannot be sold on throw away price. 11. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this application fails and the same is dismissed. The Official Liquidator is directed to look into the matter and take appropriate steps in accordance with the law. *******