1989 (11) TMI 258 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
- Validity of tenancy agreements entered into by the company after commencement of winding up.
- Entitlement of the official liquidator to evict tenants and return security deposits.
- Application of section 536(2) of the Companies Act to void post-winding up transactions.
- Claim for refund of security deposits under section 65 of the Contract Act.
- Priority of security deposit refund claims compared to other creditors.
- Examination of whether security deposits were held in trust for the tenants.
- Legal precedents regarding repayment of security deposits in liquidation cases.
- Dispute over the actual payment of security deposits by the tenants.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Bombay, delivered by Mrs. Sujata Manohar, dealt with a case involving tenancy agreements entered into by applicants with a company in liquidation. The company had leased portions of a godown to the applicants post the commencement of winding up proceedings. The official liquidator sought to avoid these transactions under section 536(2) of the Companies Act, which deems post-winding up dispositions void unless ordered otherwise by the court. The court upheld the order directing the applicants to hand over possession to the official liquidator, despite multiple appeals and review petitions.

Regarding the refund of security deposits totaling Rs. 40 lakhs, the applicants relied on section 65 of the Contract Act, arguing for restitution due to the voiding of the agreements. However, the court noted that while the applicants may have an equitable claim for refund, such claims do not receive priority over other creditors in a liquidation scenario. The court emphasized that the security deposits were not held in trust for the tenants but were treated as part of the company's funds, used for various operational purposes.

Citing legal precedents such as Rai Bahadur Seth Jessa Ram Fatehchand v. Om Narain Tankha and Maneckji Petit Mfg. Co. Ltd., the court highlighted that the existence of a trust relationship regarding security deposits depends on the terms of the agreement and factual circumstances. In this case, the lack of specific provisions indicating a trust arrangement led the court to treat the applicants as ordinary creditors in terms of refund entitlement.

Furthermore, a dispute arose regarding the actual payment of security deposits by the tenants. While the applicants claimed the payments were reflected in the company's accounts, the official liquidator raised doubts. The court directed the applicants to file their claims for deposit refund with the official liquidator for examination, with any established claims to be treated equally with other unsecured creditors.