1. This appeal has been preferred by one of the bidders for purchase of the property belonging to the respondent No. 7 at the public auction held on 11th January, 2007, challenging the order dated 29th January, 2007 passed by the Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Pune confirming the sale in favour of the respondent No. 12 and forfeiting the sum of Rs. 50 lacs out of the amount deposited by the appellants. Facts leading to the present appeal are as follows: The respondent Banks and financial institutions forming a consortium have filed proceeding for recovery of the dues from the respondent No. 7 before the D.R.T. Pending the Original Application, the factory premises of the respondent No. 7 were sought to be sold by consent of the creditors as well as the borrowers after obtaining an order dated 6th December, 2006 from this Tribunal fixing sum of Rs. 8 crores as a reserve price.
2. The notice dated 21st December, 2006 was published in the newspapers in Bombay and in Karnataka State on 26th December, 2006. Pursuant to the said notice three bids were offered and the highest was at respondent No. 12 i. e. Nirani Cements Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 10.15 crores.
The second highest bid was of Katwa Udyog Ltd. for Rs. 10.10 crores and the third highest bid was of the appellants for Rs. 9.80 crores. The said auction was held by the D.R.T. Receivers who submitted their report dated 17th January, 2007 to the D.R.T. Before submission of that report the appellants had by their letter dated 15th January, 2007 increased their offer to a sum of Rs. 10.65 crores and also showed their willingness to deposit 25% of the said amount within three days of the confirmation of the sale and the balance amount of 75% within ten days thereafter. Along with that letter demand draft of Rs. 80 lacs was enclosed. On the following date i.e. on 16th January, 2007 the appellants sent demand draft for Rs. 2 crores so as to make the deposit of 25% of Rs. 10.65 crores. The said increased offer did not find place in the report of the Receivers dated 17th January, 2007. However, by their report of 18th January, 2007 the Receivers mentioned about the said increased offer of the appellants and also about the deposit of two demand drafts for total sum of Rs. 2.80 crores being 25% of the increased offer. Curiously on 19th January, 2007 the appellants tendered an application to the Receivers seeking permission to withdraw the offer submitted by them by their letters dated 15th January, 2007 and 16th January, 2007 and for refund of the amount of Rs. 2.80 crores.
The report of the Receivers came up for consideration before the D.R.T.on 29th January, 2007. After considering the report of the Court Receivers and the offers and the highest offer of the respondent No. 12 which was accepted by the Receivers and after considering the withdrawal of the increased offer given by the appellants, the D.R.T., Pune confirmed the sale of the property in question in favour of the respondent No. 12 and ordered forfeiture of Rs. 50 lacs out of the sum deposited by the appellants which is under challenge in this appeal.
3. It may be mentioned here that the appellants who had given the bid on 11th January, 2007 of Rs. 9.80 lacs which was the third highest bid and subsequently by letter of 15th January, 2007 had increased the bid to Rs. 10.65 crores which was thereafter withdrawn on 19th January, 2007 in this appeal again re-offered to purchase the property for the sum of Rs. 10.65 crores. Accordingly, the appellants' prayer in this appeal is firstly, to accept their offer to purchase the property for the sum of Rs. 10.65 crores and to set aside the impugned order confirming the sale in favour of the respondent No. 12. By this appeal the appellants have also impugned the order of D.R.T. forfeiting the sum of Rs. 50 lacs from the earnest money deposited by the appellants.
Thus, the appeal raises two questions whether the order of forfeiture of Rs. 50 lacs out of the earnest money deposited by the appellants should be confirmed or set aside and secondly, whether the offer of the appellants to purchase the property for the sum of Rs. 10.65 crores should be accepted and sale in favour of the respondent No. 12 be set aside. In this appeal apart from these two points, two more issues are raised pursuant to the applications being Miscellaneous Application No.200/2007 filed by the respondent No. 7 and Miscellaneous Application No. 201 /2007 filed by the interveners, Penna Cements Industries Ltd. While the respondent No. 7 wants the property, which is the subject-matter of the auction, to be demarcated so that possession of the only mortgaged property which does not include survey No. 15/3 is handed over to the auction purchaser, to which all the parties including the appellants and other respondents have not taken exception. The interveners who were not aware about the advertisement given for sale of the property have offered to purchase the said property for a sum of Rs. 10.75 crores, being 10% of their offer immediately and to increase the offer, if so required if fresh auction is held in respect of the said property. I, therefore, heard all the parties on the aforesaid issues and propose to deal with them separately as follows: 4. The first issue raised by the appellants is with regard to the impugned order directing forfeiture of the sum of Rs. 50 lacs out of the earnest amount deposited by the appellants. The said order of forfeiture has been passed because vide letter dated 15th January, 2007 the appellants had increased their offer from Rs. 9.80 crores to Rs. 10.65 crores which was withdrawn by their application dated 19th January, 2007. It is not in dispute that the offer of the appellants for the sum of Rs. 10.65 crores was never accepted by the Receivers but only mention was made about it in the supplementary report filed by the Receivers on 18th January, 2007. The offer for this increased price was withdrawn on 19th January, 2007 and by the time when the matter was kept for consideration of the report of the Receivers on 29th January, 2007 it was as good as there was no offer by the appellants for purchase of the property for the increased amount of Rs. 10.65 crores.
Going by the terms and conditions of the auction, the only provision for forfeiture of the amount is made in Clause 15 thereof, according to which if the successful bidder does not pay the balance of the purchase price on the date specified by the D.R.T. or if the sale is not completed by reason of any default of the successful bidder, the Receivers shall be entitled to forfeit all the amount deposited by the successful bidder and put up the property for re-auction. Since the appellants were not the successful bidders there was no question of forfeiting the amount deposited by the appellants, and for this reason none of the respondents have ventured to support the order of forfeiture. It is the case of the appellants that though on behalf of some of the creditors forfeiture of the entire earnest amount or the part of the earnest amount deposited by the appellants was not advocated, the Kotak Mahindra Bank strongly supported and submitted that the entire amount should be forfeited. The reasons given in para 6 of the impugned order for forfeiting the sum of Rs. 50 lacs, in my view ex facie appear to be arbitrary and, therefore, need to be set aside.
5. The next question which requires consideration is about demarcation of the property sought by the borrowers because here again there was no controversy and even the auction purchaser in all fairness did not oppose the same. Necessity for filing this application by the respondent No. 7 arose because though the Receivers in their report dated 17th January, 2007 had sought direction from the D.R.T. whether to demarcate the property in question so as to separate the land survey No. 15/3 and hand over possession of the same to the borrowers with the assistance of city survey office for demarcation of the land and prepare the plans accordingly on payment of charges to them, the D.R.T.has brushed aside the same and observed that the said points should be sorted out by the auction purchaser and the borrowers. According, to all the parties demarcation of the land is necessary otherwise it would create another round of litigation between the borrowers and the purchaser because it is for the Receivers to hand over possession of only mortgaged property which was the subject-matter of the sale and, therefore, the auction purchaser and the borrowers cannot be left in lurch by the Receivers by handing over the property not only which was sold to the auction purchaser but also some other portion of the land belonging to the borrowers though not sold at the auction. Considering these aspects the appellants as well as the other respondents, including the auction purchaser, supported the respondent No. 7 in the application made by them. Consequently, the prayer Clause (a) of the Miscellaneous Application No. 200/2007 is allowed.
6. Now the questions which remain to be decided are, whether confirmation of the sale in favour of the respondent No. 12 should be set aside or not and whether the higher bid given by the appellants should be accepted, the grant of intervention application is, therefore, inter-connected or inter-related with the main prayers in the appeal to set aside the order of confirmation of sale in favour of the auction purchaser and to accept the higher bid of Rs. 10.65 crores given by the appellants or the highest bid at present of Rs. 10.75 crores given by the interveners should be accepted or as argued by the appellants, interveners and all respondents except the auction purchaser that even the fresh bids should be called by holding a fresh auction. Thus, the intervention application has to be considered along with the main prayers in the appeal for setting aside the confirmation of the sale in favour of the auction purchaser and for accepting the higher bids.
7. So far as this aspect is concerned, on behalf of the appellants, borrowers, secured creditors and interveners, it is argued that the sale or action of the property of the borrowers should be for the benefit of the secured creditors and, therefore, the Court has to set aside the sale of the property in view of the substantial increase in the offer made by the appellants as well as the interveners. Even the borrowers naturally had supported vehemently for setting aside the confirmation of the sale in favour of the auction purchaser and for accepting the highest bid given at present or for inviting fresh bids among the auction purchaser, the appellants and the interveners. For this purpose reliance is placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court, to which reference will be made little later, in which it is held that the Court has to ensure that the property fetches the highest price in the interest of the secured creditors. According to the respondent No.7 the suit has been filed against the borrowers for recovery of more than Rs. 14 crores. It is pertinent to note that the Original Application is still pending decision and no decree has yet been passed against the borrowers but the borrowers as well as the creditors were interested in sale of the property even during the pendency of the original application and, therefore, the order was sought by consent from the D.R.T. for sale of the property, However, by the time the order was passed by the D.R.T. for the sale of the property the lease in favour of the borrowers who were lessees in respect of the property had expired and, therefore, the order for sale was challenged by the respondent No. 7 before this Tribunal. In the meantime the lease in favour of the borrowers was renewed for a period upto May, 2007. After renewal of the lease the borrowers were again interested in selling the property. That is how, the order was obtained from this Tribunal on 6th December, 2006 for sale of the property, pursuant, to which the auction was held on 11th January, 2007.
8. The prayer for setting aside the auction dated 11th January, 2007 confirmed by the D.R.T. on 29th January, 2007 has been vehemently opposed on behalf of the respondent No. 12 the auction purchaser.
Firstly it is argued on behalf of the auction purchaser that this appeal is not maintainable nor the intervention application as the order confirming the sale cannot be set aside except by making an application before the Tribunal which has passed the impugned order confirming the sale. It is argued that the impugned order was passed by consent of the borrowers as well as the creditors for whose benefit the property was sold and, therefore, the sale cannot be set aside in the appeal. Reliance is placed on para4 of the say filed by the borrowers dated 29th January, 2007 before the D.R.T. in which it is stated that the offer of the appellants to purchase the property for Rs. 10.65 crores having been received on 15th January, 2007 i.e. after the due date of 10th January, 2007, as per the terms and conditions of sale, the offer was not a valid offer. The above say given in para 4 of the affidavit in reply of the borrowers seems to have been given in view of the withdrawal by the appellants of the higher offer given by them subsequently, which is clear from the subsequent paragraph and in particular para No. 7 of the say. Thus, the borrowers certainly were not opposing the higher bid given by the appellants but were considering the application of the appellants to withdraw the increased offer given by them. It was in that context the borrowers were in favour of allowing the appellants to withdraw their offer. The increased offer of the appellants was not considered by the Receivers because the Receivers had accepted the offer of the auction purchaser on 11th January, 2007. By supplementary report dated 18th January, 2007, the Receivers had only made mention about their offer for the consideration by the D.R.T. The said offer could not be considered by the D.R.T. on 29th January, 2007 also because by that time the D.R.T.had received the application seeking withdrawal of the offer by the appellants. Surely the borrowers have no intention to turn down the higher offer or the offer given by the appellants which was higher by Rs. 50 lacs but the say was given supporting the withdrawal of the offer by the appellants because the borrowers could not have pressurised or forced or compelled the appellants to purchase the property. That stand seems to have been taken by the borrowers also because the borrowers' intention was that the sale of the property should take place before the expiry of the extended period of lease in May, 2007. It was in that context the borrowers had felt that the Receiver's report dated 17th January, 2007 should be accepted as it is.
9. Next it is argued on behalf of the auction purchaser that the secured creditors had accepted the sale in favour of the auction purchaser. It is argued that even the secured creditors had given their consent for confirmation of the sale in favour of the auction purchaser. Reliance is placed on the say filed on behalf of the I.D.B.I. and I.F.C.I. on 29th January, 2007 before the D.R.T. in which it is stated that they had given their consent for sale of the property in favour of the highest bidder. The say has also been given for confirmation of the sale in favour of the auction purchaser because of the withdrawal by the appellants of the bid for Rs. 10.65 crores given by them. Another reason given for confirmation of sale in favour of the auction purchaser by the secured creditors was in order to avoid further delay in sale of the property. No objection seems to have been given by the secured creditors because the higher hid given by the appellants was also withdrawn by them. Even the D.R.T. had no option but to confirm the sale in favour of the auction purchaser by the impugned order in view of the withdrawal of the offer by the appellants for the higher amount of Rs. 10.65 crores on 19th January, 2007. The impugned order shows that none appeared on behalf of the appellants before the D.R.T. on that date when the impugned order was passed. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants tried to explain that absence by stating that there was wedding in the family of the borrowers and the Advocate of the appellants was injured in an accident at the relevant time and, therefore, he could not remain present on that date.
10. Opposing the intervention application it is argued on behalf of the respondent No. 12 that the intervention application is not a substantial remedy and such application can be made only for the purpose of opposing the appeal and not in support of the appeal. If the interveners had any grievance they should have approached the D.R.T.rather than filing the intervention application in this appeal. I do not think that an intervention can be made only for opposing the appeal and not in support of the appeal. It is argued on behalf of the interveners that there was necessity for them for purchasing the said land for mining purpose as they were trying to negotiate with the State of Karnataka. They were told that they will not get mining lease unless and until the property in question which was leased out to the appellants is purchased and, therefore, an inquiry was made by the intervenes but during that period the auction was held in respect of the said property and also confirmed by the D.R.T. and the appeal was pending in this Tribunal and, therefore, they had no alternative but to intervene in this appeal where the main prayers are to set aside the confirmation of the sale in favour of the auction purchaser and to accept the higher bid offered by the appellants.
11. Then it is argued on behalf of the respondent No. 12 that no irregularity has been shown or alleged in holding the auction nor any fraud or misrepresentation has been pleaded and, therefore, in the absence of any valid ground, the auction cannot be set aside. That is undoubtedly so except when there was cartel or syndicate operating in order to see that the property is sold to a particular party for lower price. On behalf of the interveners reference is made to the application dated 15th January, 2007 made by the appellants to the Receivers pointing out therein that the auction purchaser had not in strict compliance of the terms and conditions of the auction sale tendered the demand draft but only xerox copy of the demand drafts were given and, therefore, the auction proceeding was delayed for some time to enable the auction purchaser to submit the original demand drafts.
12. It is also argued on behalf of the interveners that three bids referred to in the Receivers' report are of the auction purchaser, appellants and Katwa Udyog Ltd., while the appellants had given bid for Rs. 9.80 crores, the Katwa Udyog Ltd. had given bid for Rs. 10.10 crores and the auction purchaser had given bid for Rs. 10.15 crores.
According to the interveners in the absence of cartel between the auction purchaser and Katwa Udyog Ltd. latter would not have kept quiet or refrained from giving further bids when the auction purchaser had raised the bid only by Rs. 5 lacs. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the three demand drafts each for Rs. 58 lacs which were given by the auction purchaser in compliance with the condition of depositing 25% of the amount which were in the names of Deepak H. Katwa, Venkatesh H. Katwa and Vilas H. Katwa and also on the letter dated 17th January, 2007 addressed to the Receiver by the auction purchaser. The learned Advocate appearing for the interveners has produced a copy of the said letter along with annexures of xerox copies of the said demand drafts across the bar during the course of his arguments and that position is not denied on behalf of the auction purchaser.
13. It is argued on behalf of the auction purchaser that the appellants had sufficient time to make inquiries about the situation and about the real valuation of the property as in the terms and conditions of the auction sufficient time of two weeks was given to satisfy the purchaser if there are any encumbrances, charges, liens and all other taxes and outgoings affecting the property. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellants who had initially given bid of Rs. 9.80 crores had any reason to raise the bid by Rs. 50 lacs after the gap of four days only.
As regards this aspect the appellants have sought to explain in the memorandum of appeal that after making inquiries the appellants learnt that the price of the said property was substantially higher and, therefore, they increased the offer to Rs. 10.65 crores by the letter dated 15th January, 2007. I do not think that it is good explanation because within four days therefrom even after tendering the sum of Rs. 2.80 crores towards earnest money they applied for withdrawal on 19th January, 2007 as they found after making inquiries that the offer of Rs. 10.65 crores was excessive. In any event the appellants again seem to have thought over the matter and ultimately in this appeal again offered to pay the sum of Rs. 10.65 crores for the purchase of the property and the appellants are still sticking up to that offer.
14. The appellants have also tried to explain their absence at the time of passing of the order of the D.R.T. on 29th January, 2007 but that is not very relevant because it is not the case of the appellants that on that day they wanted to withdraw the withdrawal application.
15. Lastly, it is argued on behalf of the auction purchaser that the sale, cannot be set aside except under Rules 60, 61 and 62 of the Schedule II to the Income-tax Act which are applicable for setting aside sale of the property in execution proceeding of the D.R.T. The reading of the provisions of Rules 60 and 61 leave no doubt that these provisions are applicable when an immovable property is sold in execution of a certificate issued by the D.R.T. Undoubtedly, the sale of the property in this matter had taken place not in pursuance of a certificate issued after a decree had been passed by the D.R.T. The claim application is still pending before the D.R.T. for its disposal and the property was sought to be sold at the request and at the instance of the borrowers even before passing of the decree against them for payment of the amount which would be found due to the creditors. That is how the order was sought from this Tribunal on 6th December, 2006 for sale of the property. Therefore, there was no question of making such application within 30 days to the Recovery Officer on a condition of deposit as contained in those rules. The auction is not sought to be set aside on behalf of the borrowers who are required to deposit the decretal amount. In this case that question also does not arise but when a third party wants to get auction set aside he may be required to deposit the auction amount. The auction was confirmed in this case on 29th January, 2007 and on 13th February, 2007 the order of status quo was granted by this Tribunal in the present appeal and, therefore, strictly speaking it cannot be said that thirty days had lapsed from the date of confirmation of the sale because by virtue of order of status quo no further steps could have been taken with regard to the sale of the property in this matter.
16. In the aforesaid facts the question that arises is whether the property should be allowed to be sold to the auction purchaser for the sum of Rs. 10.15 crores or the higher bids given by the appellants and the interveners should be considered. Since the appellants have raised their offer by Rs. 50 lacs, the interveners have gone a step further and not only given offer of Rs. 10.75 crores but are willing to raise the offer further, if required. When the interveners who were trying with the Government of Karnataka to acquire mining rights in respect of the adjoining property they were told that they could not acquire mining rights in respect of the adjoining property unless the interveners purchased the suit property and, therefore, they filed the intervention application in this appeal.
17. From the aforesaid background and the submissions made on behalf of the interveners it appears that the interveners are very much interested in purchasing this property for the purpose of purchasing the adjoining land for acquiring mining rights in respect of the lands, which are in the vicinity of the suit property and, therefore, are likely to raise the bid substantially in case other parties happen to increase the bid.
18. In this respect reliance was heavily placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court by the interveners as well as the appellants, firstly, in the case of Divya Manufacturing Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, and Tirupati Woollen Mills Shramik Shangharsha Samity v. The Official Liquidator I , and secondly, in the case of Allahabad Bank v. Bengal Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Manufacturing Co. 's case the Supreme Court has held in para 13, after considering various earlier judgments of the Apex Court as follows: ....it is abundantly clear that the Court is the custodian of the interests of the company and its creditors. Hence, it is the duty of the Court to see that the price fetched at the auction is an adequate price even though there is no suggestion of irregularity or fraud.
Confirmation of the sale by a Court at grossly inadequately price, whether or not it is a consequence of any irregularity or fraud, in the conduct of sale, could be set aside on the ground that it was not just and proper exercise of judicial discretion. In such cases, a meaningful intervention by the Court may prevent to some extent, under bidding at the time of auction through Court.
That was a case where the bid was increased by the appellant from Rs. 37 lacs to Rs. 85 lacs and then to Rs. 1.30 crores which was accepted.
About eight days after confirmation of the sale in favour of the appellant company, the respondent company filed an application before the Division Bench of the High Court for setting aside the sale and for an opportunity to submit its offer of Rs. 1.40 crores. Few days thereafter another respondent had given an offer of Rs. 2 crores and the sale though was confirmed had been set aside.
19. In the Allahabad Bank's case the Apex Court has held that the interest of the creditors should be paramount and the High Court must ensure that the sale fetches the best possible price. In that case the Supreme Court also referred to its earlier decisions and quoted with approval the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Navalkha & Sons v. Ramanya Das In every case it is the duty of the Court to satisfy itself that having regard to the market value of the property the price offered is reasonable. Unless the Court is satisfied about the adequacy of the price the act of confirmation of the sale would not be a proper exercise of judicial discretion.
20. Thus from the ratio of the aforesaid decisions it is manifest that in a matter of sale of the property under the orders of the Court, the Court is considered to be the custodian of interests of the company and its creditors and, therefore, if is the duty of the Court to see that price fetched at the auction is an adequate price even though* there is no suggestion of irregularity or fraud. Secondly, it is the duty of the Court to satisfy itself that having regard to the market value of the property the price offered is reasonable without which the sale cannot be confirmed. No doubt in this case neither irregularity nor fraud was pointed out of the D.R.T. Here on behalf of the interveners, who have not given any bid, it is alleged that there was cartel operating. In my view, there is no necessity to go into allegations of cartel as argued because from the price which is offered by the interveners and their readiness to increase that offer in case the bids are called for itself go to show that the property in question did not fetch adequate price as per the market value at the auction sale held on 11th January, 2007.
The fact that the appellants within four days thereafter had increased their offer substantially by Rs. 50 lacs itself goes to show that the appellants were also aware that the property was worth Rs. 10.65 crores on the date of auction. That offer was subsequently withdrawn is a different question. I need not go into reasons for the same but the fact remains that the offer of Rs. 10.65 crores was not a fake offer because now we have the interveners, who are prepared to give bid for more than Rs. 10.75 crores. The application to set aside the auction sale could have been made before the D.R.T. but since the appeal has been filed and the interveners' offer made in this appeal can be looked into even by the Appellate Forum because the order pursuant to which the auction was held was of this Appellate Tribunal. Secondly, the auction sale confirmed by the D.R.T. could have been challenged before this Appellate Forum which can exercise all powers vested in the D.R.T.Since initially, the order was passed by this Tribunal for holding auction by fixing reserve price at Rs. 8 crores, it is not necessary to drive the parties back to the D.R.T. where the application could have been made under the provisions of Rule 61 of the Schedule II of the Income-tax Act because that provision should not be strictly applicable in the present case.
21. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am inclined to interfere in the impugned order not because there is any flaw in the order of the D.R.T.confirming the sale at that point of time because the higher offer given by the appellants was withdrawn but because on the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court which lay down that interest of the company and the creditors is paramount and as the Court is considered to be custodian of interest of the company and the creditors, it is the duty of this Tribunal to see that the price fetched at the auction is an adequate price even though there is no suggestion of irregularity or fraud or illegality in the order of the D.R.T.22. Both the borrowers and the secured creditors are in favour of setting aside the auction sale in favour of the respondent No. 12. They do not want to re-auction the property by giving fresh advertisements for wide publicity as it would involve and entail more expenditures without any substantial increase in the price that may be expected to be fetched by ordering the re-auction and also because of the impending expiry of the renewed lease in respect of the property in May, 2007.
Both borrowers as well as secured creditors are in favour of allowing fresh bidding between the appellants, auction purchaser, interveners and Katwa Udyog Ltd. Of course, if any other party who may happen to give higher offer with reserve price of Rs. 10.75 crores can be allowed to participate.
(a) The appeal is allowed. The impugned order ordering forfeiture of Rs. 50 lacs against the appellants is quashed and set aside.
(b) The direction given in the impugned order that the auction purchaser and the borrower should sort out the points raised about demarcation of the property is also quashed and set aside and the Receiver is directed to demarcate the area of the property which is subject-matter of the auction as per the survey and handover to the auction purchaser only that property which is mortgaged to the respondent-creditors as per the survey report.
(d) The impugned order confirming the sale of the property in favour of the auction purchaser the respondent No. 12 is also quashed and set aside and a fresh bidding will be held by the Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Pune on the date to be fixed by him on receipt of the copy of this order in which the appellants, the auction purchaser, Katwa Udyog Ltd. and the interveners will participate and any other party who is interested to participate in the bidding shall also be allowed to participate as per the terms and conditions of the sale on deposit of Rs. 2.80 crores by D.D. as earnest money. The reserve price is fixed at Rs 10.75 crores The interveners will be allowed to participate in the bid only if they deposit the earnest amount of Rs. 2.80 crores by 16th March, 2007 as requested. The bids given by the interveners and the appellants at Rs. 10.75 crores and Rs. 10.65 crores respectively and that of the respondent No. 12 at Rs. 10.15 crores remain in the field and in the absence of higher bids the highest among the above bids will be accepted. If the highest bidder withdraws or backs out at any time the earnest money deposited by him shall be forfeited and the property will be sold to the next highest bidder.
(e) The appellants and the interveners shall not be allowed to withdraw any part of the amount of Rs. 2.80 crores deposited by them until holding of the auction and their deposits shall be forfeited in case they withdraw their aforesaid offers.
(f) On the request of the Advocate for the respondent No. 12, barring the sum of Rs. 2.80 crores, the balance amount deposited by them can be allowed to be refunded by the I.D.B.I, to them at their choice.
(g) The fresh bidders will have to deposit by demand draft Rs. 2.80 crores on or before the date of the bid which will be held by the Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Pune.
(h) The amount which is deposited with the Receiver shall be deposited in the I.D.B.I. in the designated account by the Receivers.
(i) On the request of the Advocate for the respondent No. 12 the D.R.T. will not fix the date for fresh bids for a period of two weeks from today.