JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) Intervention Application is not entertained, inasmuch as, this Court is considering an order, by which sale of the assets of the company in liquidation has been confirmed. Intervener seeks to contend that a part of the property, sold to the auction purchaser, was transferred in favour of the intervener much before the auction sale took place. This dispute, if any, is required to be sorted out by approaching the Company Court. 2. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the company court on 28th May, 2004 and 30th June, 2004, the present appeal has been filed. After the company went into liquidation and the assets of the company vested in the Company Court, the same were valued by one M/s. S.K. Ahuja & Associates, and later, by one M/s. S.B. Bhargava. Whereas M/s. S.K. Ahuja & Associates reported that the value of the assets of the company is around ‘6.25 crores; M/s. S.B. Bhargava reported that the value of the assets of the company in liquidation is around ‘76.8 lacs. Recourse to valuation of the assets was taken in order to get the value of the assets of the company in liquidation to be sold by the Company Court. The process thereof had started already. On 11th August, 2003, after those valuations had already been made, the application, made by the Official Liquidator to sell the assets of the company in liquidation by public auction, came up for consideration by the Company Court. The Company Court, by consent, allowed the said application and directed sale of those assets at the best possible price. 3. Subsequent thereto, on 24th September, 2003, an application was filed by the appellant herein or by its group before the Company Court contending that the value of the assets of the company in liquidation would be around ‘7crores and, accordingly, a request was made to fix a reserve price of such assets and also to repeat the auction notice twice or thrice in widely circulated newspapers. There was also a prayer for selling the assets in lots, if necessary. By then, advertisements had already been published fixing the date of public auction. The said application was disposed of on 26th June, 2003 by the Company Court without interference with the auction to be held on 29th September, 2003. There was also a prayer for selling the assets in lots, if necessary. By then, advertisements had already been published fixing the date of public auction. The said application was disposed of on 26th June, 2003 by the Company Court without interference with the auction to be held on 29th September, 2003. However, the arguments contained therein were directed to be considered at the time of confirmation of the sale. 4. The matter, pertaining to confirmation of sale, came up before the Company Court on 28th May, 2004, when the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant or its group stated that he has no further instructions in the matter and, therefore, no objections have been filed. In the circumstances, sale was confirmed for a sum of ‘45, 55,000/- on the condition that 90 per cent thereof shall be deposited within one week. 90 per cent of ‘45,55,000/- was duly deposited within the time as prescribed by the highest bidder. On October, 2004, the present appeal was preferred and in the present appeal on 30October, 2004 the auction purchaser brought on record that in the meantime, it has obtained a loan to the tune of ‘5.6 crores from Punjab National Bank by mortgaging the purchased assets. 28th May, 2004, there was a contention by another bidder to the effect that his bid was more than the highest bidder declared by the Official Liquidator. The Court found that his bid was not, in fact, higher than the bid given by the bidder, whose bid was accepted by the Official Liquidator. Inasmuch as, the highest bidder complied with the directions contained in the order of the Company Court dated 28th May, 2004, on 3rd June, 2004 when the matter came up before the Company Court for confirmation of the sale, the sale was confirmed. The assets sold were directed to be handed over to the successful purchaser. Accordingly, on 16th July, 2004, legal document was made, whereafter on 20th September, 2004 assets were handed over to the purchaser. 5. In the present appeal, it has been contended that the sale has been confirmed at a price less than the value thereof. Objections to that effect had already been filed and the same were directed to be considered at the time of confirmation of the sale. It has been contended that the same was not done. 5. In the present appeal, it has been contended that the sale has been confirmed at a price less than the value thereof. Objections to that effect had already been filed and the same were directed to be considered at the time of confirmation of the sale. It has been contended that the same was not done. The fact remains that the appellant did not permit the court to do so, inasmuch as, the counsel engaged by the appellant or its group clearly held out that he has no objection to the confirmation. 6. In the circumstances, there is no scope of interference in this appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.