Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2007 (1) TMI 621

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e KSFC to accept and confirm the sale of land and building of the company (in liquidation) viz . , property bearing No; 6 (part) Sy.No. 85, KIADB Industrial Area, ChokKahalli village, Hosakote Taluk, in favour of R-3 and permit the by the applicant corporation to hand over the possession of land and building to R-3. Application filed by the applicant in C.A. 18/07 is opposed by the respondents contending that the applicant is neither a necessary nor proper party to adjudicate the matter in controversy and that his application has to be rejected. Impleading applicant is the former director of the company (in liquidation). This court in C.A. 934/04 on 14.7.2006 has permitted the applicant KSFC to sell the assets in association with OL and KSI .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o K IADB amounting to ₹ 33.24 lacs. KSFC and the OL havlnc accepted the highest offer made by R-3, has directed R-3 to deposit 25% of the bid inclusive of EMI) amount within 7 days. Accordingly, R-3 has deposited entire sale consideration of Rs .700 Iacs on 13.12.2006. Therefore, CA 1719/06 is filed by the KSPC to accept the offer made by and confirm the sale in favour of R-3 2. Applicant in 18/07 who was the former director of the company (in liquidation ) has filed the application to come on record contending that the procedure followed oy the KSFC in conducting the sale is not in conformity with Rule-273 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and this court while permitting trae KSFC to sell the property did not approve the proced .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that submissions of the counsel appearing for the applicant need not be considered by this court. According to him, in. INTERNATIONAL COACH BUILDERS LID. vs. KANATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Hon' e Supreme Court has held that OL without permission of the court cannot conduct sale. According to him, said judgment has no application to the facts of this case. It is his case that since properties were attached by exercising powers vested under Sec. 29 of the SFC Act prior to winding up of the company as per the judgment of the Supreme Court KSFC was required to obtain permission of the court to sale the property. Therefore, this court in CIA 9341/04 on 14.7 .2006 has permitted the KSFC to alienate the property since pari passu charge .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are in a dilapidated condition, reserve price fixed by the KSFC after securing valuation report from the approved valuer TECSOK and that the property is situated about 9 Kms. Away from Hoskote and that the offer made by R-3 for ₹ 700 Iacs is exclusive of dues payable to the KEB and KIADB. According to him, offer made by him comes to more than ₹ 750 Iacs for an area of 10 acres According to him, what is auctioned by KSFC is only leasehold rights of the company (in liquidation) granted to it by the KIADB and thereafter auction purchaser if sale is confirmed has to obtain the sale deed from KIADB after collecting all the dues . Therefore, he requests this court to over-rule the objections raised by the former director of the compan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... plicant in CA 18/07 is considered to be a proper party, his objections cannot be accepted by this court for the following reasons: This court on 14 .7 2006 has permitted the KSFC to alienate the property in association with the OL and KSIIDC. If this court had directed the OL to conduct the sale in association with KSFC and KSIIDC, submission of the counsel for the applicant could have been considered by this court on the ground that Rule-272 and 273 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 are not followed by this court. But on the contrary, on 14-7.2006 considering the request of KSFC, permitted to sell the property of the company (in liquidation) Re-possessed by KSFC exercising its powers under Sec .29 of the SFC Act. Permission was granted .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates