JUDGMENT 1. TWO individual offers have been received for the first property which is the land and the four-storied building at premises no.14A, Amritlal Bose Street, Sovabazar, Kolkata - 700 005. The land is about 1284 sq. ft in area and the constructed area is about 4337 sq. ft. The two offers are from Amit Kumar Dutta, an heir of one of the contributories of the company in liquidation, and Sitaram Shaw. Sitaram Shaw is also an occupant at the premises. The official liquidator insists that Sitaram Shaw is an unauthorised occupant. Amit Kumar Dutta's original offer of Rs.1 crore has been enhanced to Rs.1.10 crore in Court. Sitaram Shaw's offer of a meagre sum of Rs.8 lakh does not appear to be a serious bid. 2. THERE is no independent offer for the second property and none of the persons present in Court makes an offer therefor. Seven offers have been received for the third property which is a vacant land at premises no.4, Amritlal Bose Street, measuring 2044 sq. ft. Destination Textile Private Limited has offered Rs.1.15 crore in its written offer; Satsang has offered Rs.50 lakh; Liberty Real Estate Private Limited has offered Rs.45 lakh; Krishna Chandra Dutta (Cookme) Private Limited has offered Rs.30 lakh; Tara Construction has offered Rs.30 lakh; Uttam Shaw has offered Rs.25 lakh; and, Ganesh Chandra Sen has offered Rs.25 lakh. Satsang and Destination Textile Private Limited have enhanced their bids in Court. The last bid of Destination Textile is Rs.6.25 crore. Satsang has outbid Destination Textile in offering Rs.6.50 crore for the property listed third in the advertisement. 3. THE solitary offer received for the fourth property, a three-storied building at 84A, Beniatola Street, Sovabazar, Kolkata - 700 005, is from Krishna Chandra Dutta (Cookme) Private Limited of Rs.25 lakh. THE offerer is represented in 4 4. COURT and has enhanced the offer to Rs.70 lakh. However, such offer is well below the valuation and cannot be considered. For the fifth property put up for sale and indicated in the notice published by the official liquidator, being the land with five-storied building at 235, Maharshi Debendra Road, Kolkata - 700 007, comprising a three-cottah plot and a constructed area about 8400 sq. ft, two bids have been received. J.D. Marketing Private Limited has offered Rs.3.50 crore and Jitendra Jain has offered Rs.30 lakh. ft, two bids have been received. J.D. Marketing Private Limited has offered Rs.3.50 crore and Jitendra Jain has offered Rs.30 lakh. J.D. Marketing Private Limited has increased the bid in COURT to Rs.4 crore. Three other offerers with a misplaced sense of humour have put in combined bids. One of them has bid Rs.40 lakh for the first three properties and the two others have offered Rs.50 lakh and Rs.25 lakh for all the five properties. None of the combined bidders has enhanced the bid. Accordingly, the sale of the land and the four-storied building at premises no.14A, Amritlal Bose Street, Sovabazar, Kolkata - 700 005 with land measuring about 1284 sq. ft and a constructed area of about 4337 sq. ft is confirmed in favour of Amit Kumar Dutta at Rs.1.10 crore subject to the entire consideration being received. 5. THE second property, the four storied building with land at 14B, Amritlal Bose Street, Sovabazar, Kolkata - 700 005 (land of 1170 sq. ft. and the constructed area of 3879 sq. ft), is not sold since commensurate offers therefor have not been received. 6. THE vacant land measuring about 2044 sq. ft at premises no.4, Amritlal Bose Street, Kolkata - 700 005 is sold in favour of Satsang at Rs.6.50 crore subject to the entire consideration being received. The fourth property, being the land measuring 2468 sq. ft and a constructed area 4209 sq. ft at 84A, Beniatola Street, Sovabazar, Kolkata - 700 005, cannot be sold since the best offer does not come close to the valuation. The fifth property, being the land and five-storied building at 235, Maharshi Debendra Road, Kolkata - 700 007, with about 3 cottah land and a constructed area about 8400 sq. ft, is sold in favour of J.D. Marketing Private Limited, at Rs.4 crore subject to the entire consideration being received. 7. IN respect of the first, third and fifth properties (14A, Amritlal Bose Street; 4, Amritlal Bose Street; and, 235, Maharshi Debendra Road), the highest bidders are required to put in the balance earnest deposit in terms of the advertisement by January 25, 2012, failing which the earnest deposits tendered would be forfeited. Upon the earnest deposits by the highest bidders in respect of the said three properties being tendered, it will be open to the official liquidator to return the earnest deposits of the other bidders for the three properties. Upon the earnest deposits by the highest bidders in respect of the said three properties being tendered, it will be open to the official liquidator to return the earnest deposits of the other bidders for the three properties. However, the second- highest bidder in each case may allow the earnest deposit to be retained by the official liquidator to be eligible to remain in contention to obtain the respective properties at the price offered by the second-highest bidder in course of the Court auction upon the highest bidder failing to make payment in terms of this order. All the highest bidders for the three relevant properties should pay the balance purchase price (after tendering the balance earnest deposit) within a period of three weeks from January 25, 2012. IN default of such balance payment being made, the earnest money is likely to be forfeited and the bid of the second-highest bidder may be accepted. However, it is made clear that upon the default of the highest bidder, the highest bid of the second-highest bidder will not automatically stand accepted. 8. THE sale in respect of the second and the fourth items listed in the advertisements (14B, Amritlal Bose Street and 84A, Beniatola Street) will stand over and the matter will appear for such purpose four weeks hence. It will be open to the bidders to enhance their offers in respect of such properties. It will also be open to the contributories and the heirs of the contributories to carry offers for the two properties to Court. At the outset, and prior to the bids being opened, an objection was raised on behalf of Ms.Ranjana Dutta and a prayer was made for the sale not to be conducted and the proceedings to be adjourned. It was the contention of such person that her husband was a contributory of the company in liquidation and that her husband had preferred an appeal from the order by which the company was directed to be wound up. It was further submitted that the order of winding-up was stayed in appeal and the position remain unaltered for several decades till her husband's death. Her husband died in 2006 and it is only now that such person claims to have discovered that the appeal has apparently been withdrawn or dismissed. It was further submitted that the order of winding-up was stayed in appeal and the position remain unaltered for several decades till her husband's death. Her husband died in 2006 and it is only now that such person claims to have discovered that the appeal has apparently been withdrawn or dismissed. Charges are made that the appeal may have been fraudulently withdrawn by persons not authorised to represent her husband after his death. It, however, appears that the matter was attempted to be moved before the Appellate Court and it was also sought to be mentioned on January 19, 2012 but the Appellate Court was pleased not to pass any order. Since substantial expenses have been incurred and the previous order in this matter was passed on December 9, 2011 by which the sale was fixed for today, it does not appear that Ms.Ranjana Dutta had made any bona fide attempt for vindicating her rights and the present prayer for the adjournment of the sale proceedings appears to be less serious and more an attempt at speculation. In any event, Ms.Ranjana Dutta was required by the Court to make a deposit of Rs.10 lakh on account of the costs incurred including for the sale of the properties of the company in liquidation which she declined to put up. In addition to the properties put up for sale, the company in liquidation had several shop-rooms at 235, Maharshi Debendra Road. The official liquidator says that such shop-rooms were not put for sale since it is the official liquidator's perception that these shop-rooms may have vested in the Thika Controller under the applicable law. 9. HOWEVER, the official liquidator has not been able to demonstrate any material on which his perception is founded. Fullest particulars as to the shop-rooms should be furnished by the official liquidator and others interested when the matter appears next four weeks hence. It is also of some significance that the other objection carried by Ms.Ranjana Dutta was that the official liquidator's advertisements did not include the properties of the company in liquidation. She says that the shop-rooms at 231, Maharshi Debendra Road, are not the only properties missed out. According to her, there was also a property in Benaras and another at 44, Kali Krishna Tagore Street, Kolkata - 700 006 which belonged to the company in liquidation. 10. She says that the shop-rooms at 231, Maharshi Debendra Road, are not the only properties missed out. According to her, there was also a property in Benaras and another at 44, Kali Krishna Tagore Street, Kolkata - 700 006 which belonged to the company in liquidation. 10. THE valuation report will be re-sealed immediately and returned to the official liqudiator. All the sales confirmed have been on 'as is where is basis' without any indemnity or assurance offered by the official liquidator or Court. 11. MS.Ranjana Dutta says that since her belongings may be at 235, Maharshi Debendra Road, which is one of the properties sold today, the official liquidator should be directed to return her belongings. Accordingly, on the prayer 12. OF Ms.Ranjana Dutta, the official liquidator is directed to depute a representative to visit the premises with Ms.Ranjana Dutta for Ms.Ranjana Dutta to obtain any OF her belongings that may be left there. Such exercise will be conducted in the presence OF a representative OF J.D. Marketing Private Limited, in whose favour the relevant property has been sold. Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.