1999 (2) TMI 472 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues: Application to remove seal from premises, ownership dispute, attachment of properties, directions by Division Bench, possession of premises, custody of documents.

Ownership Dispute:
The applicant sought the removal of the seal from premises claimed to be owned by them, alleging ownership based on an agreement from 1984 and subsequent possession by the company in liquidation. The Official Liquidator had sealed the premises, but the applicant provided documentary evidence to establish ownership by the trust, not the company. The court found prima facie evidence in favor of the applicant, leading to the decision to communicate the order to the Deputy Commissioner of Police and potentially hand over possession to the applicant if no action is taken within four weeks.

Attachment of Properties and Directions by Division Bench:
The Division Bench had issued directions in a writ petition related to the company in liquidation, instructing the Deputy Commissioner of Police to attach properties to investigate potential siphoning off by directors. The Official Liquidator highlighted these directions and suggested handing over possession of the premises to the Crime Branch if required. The court considered these directions and ordered the Official Liquidator to communicate with the Deputy Commissioner of Police and to take further action based on the investigation's progress.

Possession of Premises and Custody of Documents:
The court's order included provisions for the Deputy Commissioner of Police to investigate the property ownership issue and take necessary action within four weeks. If no action is taken within this period, the Official Liquidator was directed to remove the seal and hand over possession to the applicant. Additionally, any books of account and documents found on the premises were to be taken into custody by the Deputy Commissioner of Police for inspection by the Official Liquidator as needed.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the company application by addressing the ownership dispute, attachment of properties, directions by the Division Bench, possession of premises, and custody of documents. The decision was based on the documentary evidence presented, with instructions for further actions depending on the investigation's outcomes and potential directions from higher authorities.