Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2015 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 372 - HC - Companies LawCompany in liquidation - Disclaimer of the property - Ground of estoppel - Held that:- In equity, a person drawing benefit from a transaction is not permitted to escape from the disadvantage, if any flowing from it. In the instant case the appellant is estopped from challenging the said order dated May 14, 2013 as it accepted the benefit of the sale notice containing the stipulation fixed by the learned Company Judge that the successful purchaser shall have to vacate the said property within May 31, 2014.In view of the reasons for our finding that the appellant is estopped from challenging the first impugned order, we also reject the contention of the appellant that by purchasing the business of SST Media they are entitled to carry on the said business from said property. In the instant case, from the conduct of the appellant it is evident that it was all along interested to wrongfully continue to occupy the said property and we find total lack of bona fide on the part of the appellant to file these appeals. It is further interesting to note, while in the Memo of Appeal filed in the second appeal, the appellant states that they are looking for a new accommodation to carry on their business, still they strenuously urged the first appeal challenging the decision of the leaned Company Judge for disclaimer of the said property. At the same time, we are also disturbed with the conduct of the official liquidator. In spite of the fact that it had sold the business of SST Media property, in terms of the said order dated May 14, 2013, with the express stipulation that the appellant had to vacate the said property on or before May 31, 2014, the Official Liquidator took no step to comply with the said order dated May 14, 2013 passed by the learned Company Judge to disclaim of the said property and hand over possession of the said property, if required with the police assistance, to the respondent no. 2. The Official Liquidator, belatedly issued a letter dated September 8, 2014 requesting the appellant to vacate the said property, but the appellant refused to vacate the said property. Still the Official Liquidator took no step. Thus, the learned Company Judge had to pass the order dated May 30, 2014. We direct the Official Liquidator to have the said property vacated by the appellant, if necessary with police help within January 31, 2015 and make over vacant possession of the said property to the respondent no. 2 within February 07, 2015. The appellant shall cause payment of the monthly occupation charges at the rate of ₹ 6,14,000/- to the Official Liquidator for the period till the month of January, 2015. All such monthly occupation charges, including the arrear amount, if any, shall be paid by the appellant to the Official Liquidator within January 07, 2015 and the Official Liquidator shall in turn pay the said sum to the respondent no.2.
|