TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs, being evicted by the Company Court so as to restore the possession of the assets of the Company, after the winding up order was recalled. In view of the above, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned order and hold that the respondents-occupants are liable to be evicted. The official liquidator may hand over possession of the said assets to the appellant within three months. Further dispute, if any, including the implementation of this order may be raised before the Company Court. - CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6564 - 6567 OF 2016 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2016 - V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ. For The Petitioner : M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Adv., Abhijit Sengupta, Dibyadyuti Banerjee, A.V. Manavalam, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Abdhesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by five entities namely, Royal Blue Accessories, M/s. Magnate Industries, M/s. Narmada Equipments Spares, M/s. Packtech and Premasish and Subhasish Chatterjee respectively. 4. The shareholders of the company filed an application before the Company Judge for recalling the winding up order. The said application was allowed on 6th September, 2010. It was observed that the amount due was paid to the creditors and there was no objection to the winding up order being recalled. The official liquidator was directed to hand over the possession which was with him vide order dated 20th September, 2010. 5. The Company preferred an appeal seeking direction that the Company Judge should have restored possession of entire premises of the company a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l liquidator had accepted this position and could not go back upon this arrangement. 8. The High Court recorded its following finding with regard to the claim of two occupants who had given undertaking to vacate the premises as and when so directed :- 'In our considered view, both the occupants in view of their specific undertaking before the learned Judge would be obliged to honour such undertaking as soon as Official Liquidator was divested of possession, no matter whether the company was in liquidation or not, no matter whether property was sold or not. Their possession was coterminous with the Official Liquidator's possession that was clear from the said order. Permission to participate in the sale was superfluous. Any Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een set aside. The occupants came in possession in 2008. The Official Liquidator initially accepted rent, soon declined to accept and categorically denied and disputed the alleged right of the occupants. From the Letter for Direction being dated March 5, 2001 Official Liquidator informed the Court that M/s. Hindustan Bone Mills could not justify about the alleged tenancy. Such purported tenancy was nothing but a camouflage. Series of opportunities were given to the ex-Directors to assist the Official Liquidator in the affairs of the company so that the Official Liquidator could proceed in beneficial winding up that would include the issue of purported tenancy. Repeated appointments were fixed with Ajit Kumar Talukdar who failed to turn u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ful the Court must rise to the occasion and undo the wrong. Question would still remain, should the Court really rise to the occasion in the present factual matrix? To answer the question, we would have to lift the corporate veil. Company is ca closely held company of Talukdars. M/s. Hindustan Bone Mills was admittedly a partnership concern of Talukdars. We fully agree with the observation of the Official Liquidator that the tenancy of M/s. Hindustan Bone Mills was nothing but an attempt to stall the winding up proceeding. It was an attempt to resist the Official Liquidator from taking possession of the landed assets, Tapash Talukdar, partner of M/s. Hindustan Bone Mills very recently made application inter alia claiming that the land did n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g came into possession after the winding up order when the company's assets were in the custody of the Company Court. No arrangement of their entering possession without court's permission could be recognized. Thus, there was no justification for not passing an order of handing over the said assets of the company to the company, if winding up order is recalled. 12. Only response by learned counsel for the three occupants is that they had already filed a suit in the matter which is to be adjudicated upon. 13. After careful consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that once the Company was ordered to be wound up, the assets of the Company came in the custody of the Company Court and no arrangement, after windin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
