Lakhani Footcare (P) Ltd. v. Official Liquidator and Another
(2021) 1 Comp LJ 79 (MP) — Re-Auction During Winding Up • Adequacy of Price • Company (Court) Rules 272/273
Quick Summary
The High Court said: even if there is no fraud, the Company Court can order a re-auction when the earlier price looks too low. The Official Liquidator needs the court’s sanction to sell (Rules 272/273). Here, a later, much higher offer showed the earlier accepted price might be inadequate.
- Core idea: Court polices adequacy of price, not just procedure.
- Result: Fresh e-auction at not less than ₹30.69 crore.
Issues
- Can the Company Court order a re-auction if the price received is insufficient?
Rules
- Rule 272 & Rule 273 (Company Court Rules): OL needs court’s sanction before auctioning assets.
- Even without fraud, the court must check if the price is adequate. If not, it can order a re-auction.
The court’s goal is fair value for the company under winding up.
Facts (Timeline)
View TimelineArguments
Appellant (Lakhani Footcare)
- Later offer of ₹30.69 cr shows earlier price was inadequate.
- Court should ensure best price for creditors and stakeholders.
- Re-auction needed; acceptance of lower bid was unfair.
Respondents (OL/Seabright)
- Process followed; court-sanctioned auction already held.
- Changing course harms certainty and timelines.
- Higher offer came after auction window closed.
Judgment
Held: Order a fresh e-auction within 60 days for not less than ₹30.69 crore. Lakhani Footcare to bear re-auction costs.
- Company Judge erred in ignoring the higher bid (₹30.69 cr) by Om Gurudev Enterprises.
- Gap of about ₹2.79 cr over Seabright’s ₹28.15 cr is significant.
Ratio Decidendi
In winding up sales, the court must look beyond clean procedure to price adequacy. A clearly better offer justifies a re-auction, even without proof of fraud.
Why It Matters
- Protects creditors & stakeholders by chasing fair value.
- Reinforces OL’s duty + court’s oversight on sales.
- Signals that higher post-auction offers can’t be ignored when they expose inadequacy.
Key Takeaways
- OL needs sanction under Rules 272/273 to sell.
- Adequacy of price is central; not just absence of fraud.
- Re-auction is proper if a later credible offer shows earlier price too low.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “PRICE-FIRST COURT”
- PRICE — check if value is fair.
- FIRST — fairness beats speed.
- COURT — may order re-auction to protect stakeholders.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Can the court re-auction company assets if auction price seems inadequate?
Rule
Rules 272/273 require sanction; court must ensure adequate price and can order re-auction.
Application
Later offer of ₹30.69 cr vs. accepted ₹28.15 cr showed inadequacy; ignoring it was wrong.
Conclusion
Re-auction ordered; minimum price set at ₹30.69 cr; appellant to bear costs.
Glossary
- Official Liquidator (OL)
- Court-supervised officer who sells assets of a company in winding up.
- Reserve Price
- Minimum price fixed for auction; bids below may be rejected.
- Re-Auction
- A fresh sale process ordered to secure a better, fairer price.
FAQs
Related Cases
Navalkha & Sons v. Ramanya Das
Classic on court’s duty to secure a fair price in liquidation sales.
Kayjay Industries v. Asnew Drums
Emphasises vigilance on valuation and the possibility of re-sale.
Footer
Share
Related Post
Tags
Archive
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now