Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2009 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (8) TMI 696 - SC - Companies LawDischarge of liabilities - whether the auction sale should be confirmed or not? The acquisition of the properties whether prior to the window period, during the window period or thereafter can be attached for the discharge of liabilities? Held that:- Appeal allowed by way of remand. A plain reading of section 3(3) would suggest that all properties of the notified persons on the date of the said notification would automatically stand attached irrespective of the fact as to whether they had been acquired before, during or even after the statutory period. A logical corollary of this would be that all income accruing or arising from the said property even after the date of attachment would also automatically stand attached. However property acquired by a notified person after the notification under the Special Act cannot be attached. That property does not come within the purview of the section 3(3). The cut off date for the attachment of the property accordingly is the date of notification. All properties of the persons on the said date automatically stand attached. The statutory window period is irrelevant for the attachment of the property. It would have no bearing on the said attachment. However, a lot of documents have been filed before us with regard to Audited Reports. In our opinion this clearly shows the non-application of mind of the Judge, Special Court. He was required to weigh the submissions and counter-submissions of both the parties in his proper perspective and then arrive at a well reasoned opinion, which doesn’t seem to be the case before us. It is well settled that "Justice must not only be done, but also must be seem to be done". The Audited Reports and the objections have been filed before us. We direct the parties to file the same before the learned Judge, Special Court, so as to enable him to consider the matter afresh strictly in the light of the earlier judgment passed in Ashwin S. Mehta’s case (2006 (1) TMI 257 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) as well as the observations made herein.
|