ORDER
SHEET ACO1092014 APOT3032014 CP2111957 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE RE: BILASINI SARANGI Versus OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 25th June, 2014.
Mr.Utpal Bose, Senior Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Ruma Sikhdar, Advocate for the Official Liquidator.
The Court : The subject property is in liquidation.
The appellant before us claimed, she purchased the said property from the company whereas there were rival claiMs.Earlier, this Court protected the purchasers by allowing them to exercise their option to conclude the transaction by making payment of the purchased price.
Accordingly, the conveyance was executed in favour of the appellant.
The subject controveRs.would relate to a contiguous land that the appellant claimed, unless sold to them, would make them landlocked.
The land is measured about 225 decimal.
The matter appeared on April 25, 2014 when the sale was confirmed in favour of the appellant in respect of the said contiguous land.
Subsequently, the Official Liquidator mentioned the matter and requested the Court to recall the order of confirmation as, according to them, there had been some error in valuation.
Accordingly, the matter was directed to appear as ‘To be Mentioned’ when in presence of the appellant His Lordship directed revaluation.
Hence, this appeal.
Mr.Utpal Bose, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend, once the learned single Judge considered the valuation as per the valuer’s report and confirmed the sale in her favour that too, at an enhanced price (the appellant increased the price in deference to the desire of the Court).His Lordship should not have recalled the order and directed fresh valuation.
Per contra, Mrs.Ruma Sikhdar appearing for the Official Liquidator would strongly oppose the contention raised by the appellant.
According to her, the Official Liquidator detected the error and immediately mentioned the matter before His Lordship when His Lordship, in the presence of the appellant, directed revaluation.
Hence, no interference is called for.
We have considered the rival contentions as well as the judgment and order impugned.
Mr.Bose rightly points out, His Lordship did not specifically recall the order of confirmation, however, directed revaluation to reconsider the issue.
It is true, any order passed in the matter of winding-up, is appellable under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956.
However, the order must affect the appellant.
Otherwise, the appeal would not be maintainable.
In the instant case, the judgment and order impugned did not attain finality.
His Lordship merely directed revaluation that, in our view, would not be available for review and/or reconsideration by the Court of Appeal.
The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, after treating the same as on day’s list, without any order as to costs.
Consequently, the application is also dismissed.
(ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J.) (ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.) sd/