9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. VIBHU BAKHRU, J. 1. The appellant, essentially, claims title in respect of the land admeasuring 3 acres and 27 Guntas (hereafter 'the property') in Survey no. 189 (part situated at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad). He claims that the said property was acquired from Cogent Ventures (India) Ltd., which in turn had acquired certain lands from three companies namely, JVG Farm Fresh Ltd., JVG Finance Ltd. and JVG Leasing Ltd. (hereafter referred to as 'the JVG companies') from parcels of land owned by JVG Companies in survey no. 94, 95, 96, 97 and 189 (hereafter referred to as 'the subject land'). 2. The appellant claims that Cogent Ventures (India) Ltd., then known as Bhupendra Capital & Finance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. He also submits that the appellant had paid full consideration for the property through banking channels and therefore, there could not be any doubt that the appellant is a bona fide purchaser of the property for valuable consideration. He submits that the learned Company Court had erred in not considering the Official Liquidator's letter dated 10.10.2003 to the District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District confirming that the Official Liquidator had taken over possession of only 225 plots out of 395 plots at site. He also contends that the learned Company Court had overlooked the Official Liquidator's letter dated 11.12.2007 to the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District confirming all sale deeds, settlement deeds, Agreement of Sale, GPAs a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t JVG Finance Ltd. and other JVG companies had acquired the subject land under various sale deeds. It is also not disputed that as on the date of the appointment of the Provisional Liquidator, the JVG companies had not registered any Conveyance Deed transferring any part of the subject land in favour of the appellant or Cogent Ventures (India) Ltd. The appellant claims that on 22.04.1996, that is, prior to the appointment of the Provisional Liquidator, the JVG companies had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Bhupendra Capital & Finance Ltd. and other contractors for development of the area admeasuring 80 acres (located at survey no. 92, 97 and 189 located at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hydera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty from Cogent Ventures (India) Ltd. in terms of the Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 22.06.2006 executed by Cogent Ventures (India) Ltd. for a consideration of Rs.1,10,25,000/- (Rupees One Crore Ten Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand). 14. In the winding up proceedings, the learned Company Court passed an order dated 10.03.2006, restraining the concerned Sub-Registrar from registering document relating to Sale-Purchase, Power of Attorney and Agreement to Sale in respect of all Sale Deeds and transactions that were executed by JVG Finance Ltd. after 07.12.1997, without the permission of the Court. The Official Liquidator was also directed to put a notice board on the location of the proposed project, 'JVG Hills', stating t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the claims of Cogent Ventures (India) Ltd. and had rejected the same in its report dated 25.11.2010. In its report, the One-Man Committee had also noted that the documents relied upon did not mention any amount spent by Cogent Ventures (India) Ltd. on the project work. Further, no detail was mentioned regarding the actual physical work executed. The documents also did not disclose the amount paid to various companies for execution of the works and the mode of making such payment. 20. Indisputably, title in the property did not vest with Cogent Ventures (India) Ltd. as there was no registered document conveying the said title of any part of the subject land in its favour. 21. Admittedly, Cogent Ventures (India) Ltd. had not challenged th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be in violation of the orders passed by the learned Company Court and such registration cannot confer any rights in favour of the appellant. 25. It is also material to note that although the appellant claims to derive its interest in the property from documents executed in the year 2006, he had taken no steps for execution of the conveyance in his favour. 26. The appellant claims that he was unaware of the orders passed by this Court. The learned Company Court has rightly disbelieved the same. The Official Liquidator has, on repeated occasions, taken steps for protection of the subject land and properties owned by the JVG companies. It is difficult for this Court to accept that the appellant would not have been aware of the same. Acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
