• Today: January 10, 2026

Lakhani Footcare (P) Ltd. v. Official Liquidator and Another

04 November, 2025
6551
Lakhani Footcare (P) Ltd v. Official Liquidator — Re-Auction Power & Company Court Rules Explained

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

MP High Court (Indore Bench) 2021 (2021) 1 Comp LJ 79 (MP) Insolvency & Company Law ~7 min India
Hero image for Lakhani Footcare v Official Liquidator explainer

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

  1. 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 Timeline
Sep 2016: Winding up petition admitted; Official Liquidator appointed.
Dec 2018: Court permits e-auction; reserve price ₹31.00 cr. No bids.
Fresh e-auction allowed; reserve cut to ₹27.90 cr. Wide advertisement issued.
Apr 2019: Highest offer: Seabright at ₹28.15 cr.
Jun 2019: Om Gurudev Enterprises offers ₹30.69 cr (10% cheque sent); another offer at ₹29.00 cr also received.
Sep 2019: OL finalises Seabright; Mar 2020 Company Judge approves.
Seabright seeks time extension to deposit; partial deposit directions issued.
Appeal: Lakhani Footcare challenges acceptance of Seabright’s lower bid.

Arguments

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”

  1. PRICE — check if value is fair.
  2. FIRST — fairness beats speed.
  3. 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

No. Inadequate price alone can justify a re-auction in winding up sales.

It was about ₹2.79 cr higher than Seabright’s bid, signalling better value was available.

Lakhani Footcare was directed to bear the re-auction costs.

That the OL does not sell without court sanction and the court supervises for fairness and value.
Judgment illustration for Lakhani Footcare re-auction ruling

Comment

Nothing for now