TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , from Binny Limited, which being a sick company, had been permitted to sell this valuable property with a view to realise its cash equivalent. The agreement with Binny Limited provided for the sale of that larger area of 46.945 grounds to the petitioner or its associates for a consideration of Rs.2,565 lakhs. The petitioner nominated five of its associates to purchase parts of that areas--T. V. S. Suzuki Limited 8.576 grounds, Lakshmi Auto Components-6.166 grounds, T.V.S. Electronics Limited-6.138 grounds, T.V.S. Finance Limited--8.965 grounds, Mr. Gopala Srinivasan, joint managing director of the petitioner-company, as an individual 4 grounds. The remaining extent of 13.1 grounds was to be purchased by the petitioner in its own name. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parts of that area under one or more sale deeds. The common vendor Binny Limited, it is clear had executed the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner and its associates only pursuant to the agreement of November 11, 1999, with the petitioner, under which, it could look forward only to the receipt of the total sum of Rs.2,565 lakhs, and that was the amount which it could insist upon before parting with its title to 46.945 grounds. The associates of the petitioner had no right by themselves to purchase any part of this land except through the petitioner by being nominated by the petitioner as its nominee for the purpose of claiming the benefit of the agreement between the petitioner and Binny Limited. That agreement provided among other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the other ten grounds, had a reduced value by reason of the obligation to retain that area as a pathway/private road and to make that pathway available to two others whose residences abutted that private road/pathway, does not in any way militate against the petitioner's contention that what was ultimately payable to the common vendor Binny Limited for the total area agreed to be sold to the petitioner and its nominees was an amount which represented the true value of the entire land, and was an amount which was not less than the market value by more than 15 per cent. Once that contention is found to be acceptable, it is evident that no presumption could be made that the proposed conveyance from Binny Limited to the petitioner was with a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
