Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (9) TMI 168 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2016 (9) TMI 168 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - TMI - Eviction of persons - whether the Company Court could evict persons, who have occupied property of a company after commencement of winding up proceedings, on such company being revived under the order of the Company Court? - Held 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 winding up order, without permission of the Company Court could be recogniz .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llant 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 Chaudhary, Niendu Vatsyayan and Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Advs. For The Respondent : Arjun Singh Bhati, Arvind K. Gupta, Avijit Bh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Ltd. v. Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta 120 SCL 40 (Mag.) respectively. 2. The question for consideration is whether the Company Court could evict persons, who have occupied property of a company after commencement of winding up proceedings, on such company being revived under the order of the Company Court. 3. The appellant-company was directed to be wound up by order dated 9th November, 1998 in Company Petition No. 12 of 1998 filed by one of its creditors M/s. Indian Potash Limited. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 seek .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ompany claiming that it was entitled to be restored the possession of the entire property of the company and not merely the property in possession of the official liquidator and three appeals filed up occupants of the premises belonging to the company, claiming the right to continue in possession. The Company Judge found that though M/s. Hindustan Bone Mills, a partnership firm claimed that it was in possession of the part of the premises prior to the Company being sent to liquidation, none of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in possession through M/s. Hindustan Bone Mills who was the tenant of the Company and the official 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 underta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The word 'public auction' would connote an invitation to the public. The public would include "Pack Tech" and "Chatterjee Brothers". His Lordship's permission could thus be not construed as a condition upon vacating of the premises in question. We respectfully defer with Mr. Bhattacharya on that score. It would thus take care of the issue relating to Section 536(2).' 9. We did not find any reason to interfere with the above finding and have dismissed the SLP .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Narmada. The provision of Section 446 is discretionary. It is an enabling power without any mandate to the Court. The question would thus remain, whether in the present factual matrix the Court should be bothered with such an adjudication particularly when there was no lis pending before the Company Court as the order of winding up had already been set aside. The occupants came in possession in 2008. The Official Liquidator initially accepted rent, soon declined to accept and categorically denie .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ported tenancy. Repeated appointments were fixed with Ajit Kumar Talukdar who failed to turn up. The Official Liquidator accepted rent from M/s. Hindustan Bone Mills. The relevant Extracted of the Letter for Direction is quoted below:- "This matter has been examined by the Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta, it appears that the ex-Directors of the company (in liquidation) have created the tenancy in favour of M/s. Hindustan Bone Mills and issued the alleged receipt dated 5th November .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e served upon the occupants as we find from the order dated June 11, 2010. In view of the change of determination the said Letter for Direction came before another learned Judge on July 16, 2010 when His Lordship did not pass any order in terms of prayer (a). The Official liquidator accepted the said decision and did not proceed further as against the said occupants. Mr. Basak strenuously contended, such position would not per se be fatal for the company. Accordingly to him, the Official Liquida .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 not belong to the company in liquidation. Hence, Talukdars were eager to resist sale. They were also trying to dispose it surreptitiously. They were successful .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ories, Magnet and Narmada and immediately disappeared from the scene as his whereabouts were not known at least nobody informed us. We also find that the application for setting aside the order of winding up was filed by Talukdars having Tapash on their side. Hence, if the occupants would say, Talukdars got the share from Ranjit when they paid hefty amount to Ranjit in coming into possession, it could not be brushed aside. Their possession may be illegal. However, the Company Court should not co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version