9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether these applications, in the present form, are maintainable? 2. Whether the applicants have an alternative remedy under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and hence, these applications are not maintainable? 3. Whether this court has jurisdiction to order summary eviction of the concerned opponents? 4. Whether the opponents have any legal right to remain in possession of the property occupied by them? 5. Whether the opponents prove that they have become owners of the respective portions of the land occupied by them by the doctrine of adverse possession? 6. What order? Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue No. 1: Maintainability of Applications The court examined sections 391 and 392 of the Companies Act, 1956. Section 391 allows for a scheme of compromise or arrangement between a company and its creditors or members, which must be sanctioned by the court. Section 392 empowers the High Court to supervise the implementation of such a scheme and issue necessary directions for its proper working. The court concluded that the applications are maintainable as the Court Committee is tasked with realizing the value of the company's properties to disburse funds to creditors. The presence of the opponents on the property obstructs the implementation of the scheme. Thus, the court has the jurisdiction to issue directions to remove such impediments under sections 391 and 392. Issue No. 2: Alternative Remedy under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act The court acknowledged that section 6 of the Specific Relief Act provides an alternative remedy for possession without reference to title. However, it held that this does not bar the maintainability of the present applications under sections 391 and 392 of the Companies Act. The court emphasized that its supervisory powers under section 392 are independent and aimed at ensuring the smooth implementation of the scheme. Therefore, the availability of an alternative remedy does not preclude the court from exercising its jurisdiction in this matter. Issue No. 3: Jurisdiction to Order Summary Eviction The court affirmed its jurisdiction to order the summary eviction of the opponents. It reiterated that the powers conferred under sections 391 and 392 of the Companies Act are broad and include the authority to remove any impediments to the proper working of the scheme. The court found that the presence of the opponents on the property is an obstruction that needs to be removed to implement the scheme effectively. Issue No. 4: Legal Right of Opponents to Remain in Possession The court examined the evidence and found that the opponents have no legal right to remain in possession of the property. The opponents did not dispute the company's title to the property but claimed ownership by adverse possession. The court found no evidence to support this claim and concluded that the opponents are rank trespassers with no right, title, or interest in the property. Issue No. 5: Adverse Possession Claim The court held that the opponents failed to establish their claim of adverse possession. It noted that a heavy burden lies on the person claiming adverse possession to prove continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period. The court found that the opponents did not provide sufficient evidence to meet this burden. The court emphasized that mere possession is insufficient to establish adverse possession without evidence of acts of ownership or hostile title. Issue No. 6: Final Order Based on the findings on the above issues, the court concluded that the opponents have no legal right to remain on the property and that their presence obstructs the implementation of the scheme. The court ordered the removal of the opponents from the property to allow the Court Committee to hand over vacant possession to Unique Builders and complete the sale, thereby realizing the funds for disbursement to creditors. Conclusion: The court's judgment addressed the maintainability of the applications, the availability of alternative remedies, the court's jurisdiction, the legal rights of the opponents, and the claim of adverse possession. It concluded that the applications are maintainable, the court has jurisdiction to order summary eviction, the opponents have no legal right to remain on the property, and their claim of adverse possession is unsubstantiated. The court ordered the removal of the opponents to facilitate the implementation of the scheme.
|
