Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2013 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 317 - HC - Companies LawProperty Liable for Attachment or Not - Whether the suit property was subject to attachment and was under control of the Official Liquidator who in turn wished to put it to sale - Held that:- The contentions of both appellants that the attachment order was not binding and was held to be meritless and was consequently rejected - The orders passed and the affidavits found and noticed to have been filed from time to time before the Special Court, the Special Court could not be either faulted for its conclusions or that the specific findings arrived at that the consent order taken together with the affidavit of undertaking covered within its fold the property of the appellant-company in question for being proceeded against in execution of the decree passed for recovering the amount due as declared in the consent order could not be said to be vitiated in any manner warranting our interference. Consequently, it would be permissible for the Custodian to proceed against the property comprised in Units 3 and 4 belonging to the appellant- company also by means of an appropriate execution application as and when he choose to do so. It was nothing but a self-serving attempt found to be made as a pure afterthought to wriggle out of the lawful commitments made and retrace the position in which the Directors of the company have allowed themselves to be landed in - On the other hand, the terms as well as the tenure of the above proceedings make clear the dominant intention and purpose of them to be merely an undertaking given by a third party to the proceedings to the Court to abide by a particular course of action if the judgment-debtor failed to satisfy the decree - the undertaking as well as the consent decree only enabled the Custodian to initiate execution proceedings against the properties in question of the appellant- company and it was only in the event of such sale, the question of coming into existence any document which would require compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Act would arise and not at this stage - In substance and effect what has been undertaken to the Court was to preserve the properties intact for being proceeded against in a given eventuality and deliver peaceful possession of the property in the event of such action becoming necessary.
|