AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Das, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of Utkal Manufacturing and Services Limited (UMSL) and submits, his client was successful auction bidder. The sale was set aside by order dated 2nd March, 2017 by the then learned Company Judge. Security deposit by his client for making bid amounting to Rs.1.25 crores, is to be refunded to his client. This is being obstructed.
On query from Court, Mr. Sethi, learned advocate, Official Liquidator submits, there is no difficulty in making the refund since, the sale was set aside. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate submits, there is an application for recall of the order, pending. He prays for adjournment to obtain instructions. Mr. Das opposes the prayer.
Adjournment granted is peremptory. The recall application will be heard first on adjourned date.
Mr. Barik, learned advocate appears for applicant in I.A. no.6 of 2017. He submits, his client’s prayer is for converting the supply as to individual domestic consumer. On query from Court he submits, his client is ex-employee of the company (in liquidation).
Ms. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant in Misc. Case no.92 of 2007. She submits, her clients are ex-employees, who have not got their dues from Official Liquidator. This application also be listed.
List on 28th June, 2022, along with above applications, under heading ‘Old Matters’.
………………………….