Home Case Index All Cases Benami Property Benami Property + HC Benami Property - 2010 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (9) TMI 927 - HIGH COURT OF MADRASWhether no general power of attorney document was produced before this court and it is not known whether such power of attorney was a registered document and inasmuch as the original documents are with the respondents, there is no need to interfere with the said sales? Held that:- There is ample evidence to show that when a notice was issued on behalf of the respondents through their counsel calling for objections for the purchase of 27 acres of land, specific objections were raised on behalf of the company and in spite of such objections, the respondents have proceeded to purchase the property under various sale deeds. Such purchases have been made despite the fact that winding up petition against the company was pending and many orders came to be passed by this court restraining the intermeddlers from interfering with the possession of the property by the company, and publications have been effected widely in Andhra Jyothi, Telugu daily in Andhra Pradesh as per the orders of this court in various company applications and even afterwards it is astonishing to note that in the documents, especially Document Nos. 7314 to 7316 of 2003 executed by the second respondent (Koduru Venkateswara Prasad), the beneficiary himself has signed as a witness to the documents. In addition to the above, while the total extent transferred under the said documents sought to be set aside is 27 acres, the fourth respondent has chosen to execute a sale deed in respect of 3 acres and if that is so, the total extent of lands put together would come to 30 acres as against 27 acres and this would show the unscrupulous manner with which the sale deeds have been executed in respect of the properties of the company. The sales which are the subject-matter of these applications are not only against the interest of the creditors of the company in liquidation, but the transactions also cannot be said to be bona fide and the respective purchasers cannot be said to be the purchasers without knowledge of defective title. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention raised by learned senior counsel for the respondents/purchasers that such sales should not be interfered with.
|