Judgment : A. P. SHAH, C. J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the Official Liquidator who is present in Court. 2. In the auction sale conducted pursuant to the order of this Court the bid of the appellant for Rs. 14 Crores was confirmed by order dated 5.1.2007. The appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 29 Lakhs towards Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) on 5.1.2007. In respect of the balance sale consideration, the first instalment of 50%, i. e., Rs. 6,85,50,000/- was to be paid within a period of 45 days and the remaining 50%, i. e.. Rs. 6,85,50,000/- was to be paid within the next 45 days, i. e., the entire amount was liable to be paid within 90 days from the date of confirmation. While confirming the sale, the learned Company Judge has specified that if there be any default, the EMD shell be forfeited in toto. 3. Clause 16 of the terms and conditions of the auction is material and it reads as follows: “The non-payment of the balance sale consideration after the confirmation of sale within the period stipulated above shall re-sult in the forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit paid and the highest bidder shall also be liable in respect of expenses incurred for conducting the sale and also for damages.” The appellant failed to pay the first instalment within the time stipulated and applied for extension of time by further four weeks. The said application came to be rejected by the Company Court, and by the order dated 26.4.2007, a direction was issued to the Official Liquidator to obtain a fresh valuation through ITCOT for fresh sale of the property. The appellant then took out the Judges Summons for refund of the money deposited by the appellant, which came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge by the order under appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the sale of the property in question was re-advertised and the property was sold for a sum of Rs. 24.30 Crores end thus, there is no loss to the Official Liquidator and therefore, the amount deposited by the appellant should be directed to be refunded to him. 5. The Official Liquidator has brought to our notice the following points for consideration: #x201C;( a) The appellant consented after having read the terms and conditions of the auction sale. 24.30 Crores end thus, there is no loss to the Official Liquidator and therefore, the amount deposited by the appellant should be directed to be refunded to him. 5. The Official Liquidator has brought to our notice the following points for consideration: #x201C;( a) The appellant consented after having read the terms and conditions of the auction sale. (b) The appellant after being declared as the successful bidder has noted in his own handwriting on the back side of the Tender Form that he had offered Rs. 14 Crores. (c) Because of inaction on the part of the successful bidder, i. e., the appellant in remitting the payment, the company (in liquidation) has suffered a loss of over Rs. 179,91,880/- by way of loss of interest, valuation and repeated advertisements. (d) The inaction on the part of the appellant has resulted in loss of over 15 months time in pursuing further, the liquidation proceedings. (e) In other words, the liquidation proceedings have taken a back seat by about 15 months, thereby enlarging the period of liquidation which is not in the interest of the creditors, the contributories etc. (f) The Company Court has already taken a sympathetic view in respect of the appellant while forfeiting the EMD, as in terms of Clause-16 of the terms and conditions to which the appellant has duly consented before participating in the auction, is liable to be imposed, cost of advertisement, charges, etc., in addition to forfeiture which has not been levied in the present case.” 6. Having considered the points highlighted by the Official Liquidator, it is not possible to accept the prayer of the appellant for refund of the Earnest Money Deposit. The O.S.A. is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2008 is closed.