2005 (2) TMI 526 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eviction of the respondent from the premises of Vijaya Mills Ltd.
2. Disposal of the land after eviction.
3. Legitimacy of the electric meter installation.
4. Overall reliefs in the interest of justice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eviction of the respondent from the premises of Vijaya Mills Ltd.:
The applicant, Textile Labour Association, sought the eviction of the respondent from Vijaya Mills Ltd. premises, alleging unauthorized and illegal occupation. The respondent claimed lawful possession as a tenant, supported by rent receipts and a history of rent payments. The court scrutinized the rent receipt dated 12-1-1988, finding it to be false and fabricated, issued on the letterhead of Shri Krishna Chawl, meant for workers' residences, and containing visible interpolations. The court concluded that the respondent was never a tenant but merely a Reeling Contractor whose contract ended with the company's closure. The court directed the Official Liquidator (O.L.) to take immediate possession of the premises from the respondent and disconnect the electricity supply.

2. Disposal of the land after eviction:
The disputed land was part of the property already sold by the O.L., with the sale confirmed by the court. The court noted that the purchaser now has the duty to protect the property and defend the court's order if challenged. The court emphasized the need for the O.L. to act promptly in taking possession and ensuring the property's protection.

3. Legitimacy of the electric meter installation:
The applicant questioned the legitimacy of an electric meter installed by the respondent. The respondent claimed it was a reconnection after damage during riots, supported by a letter from the O.L. to the Ahmedabad Electricity Company (A.E.C.). The court found that the O.L. had no authority to recommend the electric connection without prior court permission, deeming the installation unauthorized.

4. Overall reliefs in the interest of justice:
The court addressed various allegations and counterclaims, including the respondent's assertion of tenancy rights and the applicant's challenge to the respondent's locus standi. The court dismissed the respondent's objections, affirming the applicant's right to file the application. The court criticized the O.L.'s role, highlighting malpractices and the need for thorough scrutiny and investigation into the O.L.'s dealings. The court allowed the application, directing the respondent to vacate the premises and the O.L. to take possession immediately.

Separate Judgments Delivered by Judges:
Not applicable as the judgment was delivered by a single judge.