9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant is a Government Corporation which allots plots of land for the purpose of setting up industries to different persons. The plots are allotted on certain conditions and if the conditions are not fulfilled or if the entire payment is not made within the time stipulated, the allotment is cancelled and possession of the plot is taken back by the appellant. In pursuance of the aforestated activity of the appellant- Corporation, under a letter dated 31st August, 1988, the appellant- Corporation had allotted a plot to M/s. Team-Asia Lakhi Semiconductors Ltd. on conditions incorporated in the said letter. The allotment was made in pursuance of an application dated 20th August, 1988 submitted by the M/s. Team-Asia Lakhi Semiconductors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Company could not make entire payment of the plot in question, which ultimately resulted into forfeiture of the amount paid and even possession of the plot in question was with the appellant though for a limited purpose, the Company was permitted to occupy the plot. 5. It is pertinent to note that the Company, because of its very poor financial conditions, was ordered to be wound up and the official liquidator, appointed by the Company Court wanted to take possession of the plot in question so that the said plot may be sold and out of the sale price, dues of the Company may be paid. When the appellant-Corporation came to know that the official liquidator was making an effort to dispose of the plot in question, believing the plot to be o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it was an admitted fact that the entire amount of the sale price had not been paid to the appellant by the Company and therefore, the plot had not been transferred to the Company. 9. For the aforestated reasons, the learned counsel had submitted that the impugned order passed by the High Court requires to be quashed so that the appellant-Corporation can deal itself with the plot in the manner in which it likes, especially when the amount which had been paid by the Company had already been forfeited because the Company had not fulfilled the conditions on which the plot had been allotted. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the official liquidator of the Company had submitted that as an order of winding up had alr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r some limited purpose would not create any interest or right in favour of the Company. The plot would remain the property of the appellant-Corporation as the conditions on which the transfer was to take place had not been fulfilled. 14. In the aforestated circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court was in error while coming to the conclusion that the appellant had no right in the plot in question and therefore, the impugned judgment as well as the order passed in Company Application are quashed and set aside and it is held that the plot in question does not belong to the Company in liquidation and the official liquidator has no right to deal with the said plot or dispose of the said plot and it would be open to the appellant-Cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
