JUDGMENT : 1. This is an alarming matter. 2. Despite the most elementary requirements of a company Judge being to fetch the highest price for the sale of any asset of a company (in liquidation), a six-bigha property in Shantipur, mostly open land, has been sold at Rs.30 lakh and the order not revisited despite one of the parties in this appeal indicating that the value of the land as per the circle rate may be over Rs.2 crore. 3. A company Court acts more than as a trustee for all the creditors of the company (in liquidation), particularly its workers who enjoy a paramount right under Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956. As a consequence, it is the bounden duty of every company Court to ensure that the best price is obtained for any asset of a company (in liquidation) and that every effort is made in such regard. Technicalities cannot stand in the way nor imperious considerations such as a previous order having already been passed. At the end of the day, when a company goes into liquidation several creditors, including employees and workers, remain unpaid or insufficiently paid. The more the assets of the company (in liquidation) fetch, the greater the possibility of the debts of the company (in liquidation) being discharged. 4. Legal journals abound with decisions that indicate that notwithstanding a sale having been concluded, if better offers are received within reasonable time of the conclusion of the sale, the company Court would try and obtain the better price. In this case, the sale had not been concluded on September 21, 2017 when the order impugned was passed. Indeed, the deed of conveyance has not yet been executed by the Official Liquidator. 5. By a previous order of November 4, 2016, the land described in the sale notice as measuring 238 decimal and having a total built-up area of 722 sq.ft. at Bagachhra, Shantipur, District – Nadia, was sold at the then highest offer made in court of Rs.30 lakh. 6. The order of November 4, 2016 appropriately recorded that since further offers were not forthcoming for the property and despite the offer of Debasis Das of a sum of Rs.30 lakh being marginally over the distress sale value of the property, the Court was constrained to accept such offer. 7. 6. The order of November 4, 2016 appropriately recorded that since further offers were not forthcoming for the property and despite the offer of Debasis Das of a sum of Rs.30 lakh being marginally over the distress sale value of the property, the Court was constrained to accept such offer. 7. Oftentimes, court sales do not receive offers commensurate with the assets proposed to be sold. Sometimes there are cliques or cartels that are formed to deliberately suppress the price of the asset proposed to be sold and it is a regular feature that the same bidder applies in several names for the same property. Company Judges have to look through such attempts in court to suppress the value of an asset being sold. However, if repeated advertisements are issued and the requisite price is not achieved, assets of a company (in liquidation) may be sold at the highest price available after recording reasons there for. 8. The order dated November 4, 2016 cannot be faulted in such regard since it indicated that previous advertisements had been published and no offer better than Rs.30 lakh was in court. 9. However, by the order impugned dated September 21, 2017, a plea for reopening the sale was disregarded merely because it was perceived to be a frivolous attempt and the applicant had not stated that he was ready and willing to deposit the value of the land which was pegged at Rs.2.12 crore. 10. The company Court did not notice that the conveyance had not been executed in favour of the purchaser, that the circle rate was indicated to be more than seven times the price at which the land was sold and the applicant before the company Court had carried a substantially better offer. At any rate, the appellant herein could have been put on terms before the order dated November 4, 2016 was disturbed. 11. Indeed, the appellant says that he has an offer to buy the property at Rs.60 lakh. To show his bona fides, the appellant seeks leave to immediately deposit a sum of Rs.15 lakh with the Official Liquidator. 12. The offer of Rs.60 lakh for the property appears to be inadequate. The appellant is requested to reconsider the matter and revise the offer. To show his bona fides, the appellant seeks leave to immediately deposit a sum of Rs.15 lakh with the Official Liquidator. 12. The offer of Rs.60 lakh for the property appears to be inadequate. The appellant is requested to reconsider the matter and revise the offer. It will be also open to Debasis Das, the purchaser identified by the order dated November 4, 2016, to also participate in the further bidding in court. It is made clear that since some rights have accrued in favour of Debasis Das, in the event Debasis Das participates in the auction in court, he has to be outbid by the other; that is to say, if Debasis Das bids Rs. 1 crore and such is the bid of any other bidder, Debasis Das will have the right to retain the property at such bid unless he is outbid by any other bidder. 13. The Official Liquidator will remain restrained from taking steps to complete the sale or execute any deed of conveyance in respect thereof. Debasis Das will remain restrained from dealing with or disposing of or alienating or encumbering or creating any third party right in respect of the land in question. Debasis Das will not part with possession of any part of such land or building thereat without the express leave of this Court. 14. It is recorded that the appellant has tendered three demand drafts totalling Rs. 15 lakh to Advocate for the Official Liquidator towards earnest deposit in support of his offer of Rs.60 lakh for the relevant land. 15. The Official Liquidator will cause advertisements to be published in “Bartaman”, “Aajkal”, “Sanmarg” and “The Statesman” newspapers indicating that bids will be received for the land in question in this court on December 15, 2017. The advertisements should indicate that offerers should deposit at least 25 per cent of the bids on account of earnest deposit by way of demand drafts or bankers’ cheques or like instruments, not being personal cheques. Bids not accompanied by the previous earnest deposit may not be considered at all. 16. It may also be noticed that the company (in liquidation) was involved in ponzi business and several depositors had been duped by it. The more the money realised by the company Court, the more depositors can be repaid. 17. Bids not accompanied by the previous earnest deposit may not be considered at all. 16. It may also be noticed that the company (in liquidation) was involved in ponzi business and several depositors had been duped by it. The more the money realised by the company Court, the more depositors can be repaid. 17. It will be open to the Official Liquidator and Debasis Das and any other interested to file their affidavits. 18. The expenses for the advertisements will be borne by the appellant and the appellant should put in the requisite costs within a day of the Official Liquidator’s intimation in such regard. The costs of the advertisements will ultimately be deducted first out of the sale proceeds. The Official Liquidator should append the previous valuation reports pertaining to the property in question or relevant extracts there from to the affidavit to be filed by the Official Liquidator.