9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the disposition of the property of a company made during the interregnum between the presentation of the petition for winding up and passing of an order for winding up is ab initio null and void. 2. Whether the transaction between the applicant and the company in liquidation was bona fide under section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. 3. Applicability of Supreme Court judgments in Pankaj Mehra v. State of Maharashtra and Sankar Ram & Co. v. Kasi Naicker to the case at hand. 4. The role and interpretation of the term "void" in the context of section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. 5. The impact of the Official Liquidator's actions post-winding up order on the applicant's claim. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Disposition of Property During Interregnum The primary question was whether the disposition of the property made during the period between the presentation of the winding-up petition and the passing of the winding-up order is ab initio null and void. The court examined the provisions of section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, which contemplates avoidance of transfers or disposition of any property of a company after the commencement of winding-up proceedings. Issue 2: Bona Fide Nature of the Transaction The applicant argued that the transaction was bona fide, supported by the sequence of facts and payments made by cheques, which were registered with the Registrar of Companies. The Official Liquidator contended that the transactions were not bona fide and were void against the Official Liquidator under section 536(2). The court needed to determine if the transactions were bona fide based on evidence presented by both parties. Issue 3: Applicability of Supreme Court Judgments The applicant relied on Supreme Court judgments in Pankaj Mehra v. State of Maharashtra and Sankar Ram & Co. v. Kasi Naicker, which interpreted section 536(2) and analogous provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The Official Liquidator argued that these judgments applied only to day-to-day transactions and not to the sale of property or assets. The court had to decide if these judgments were applicable to the facts of the case. Issue 4: Interpretation of "Void" in Section 536(2) The Supreme Court in Pankaj Mehra's case clarified that the term "void" in section 536(2) does not automatically indicate that any disposition should be ab initio void and that the court has the power to order otherwise. The court in this case had to examine whether the disposition was valid or void based on the bona fide nature of the transaction. Issue 5: Impact of Official Liquidator's Actions Following the winding-up order, the Official Liquidator issued a notice to the applicant to hand over the assets and took possession of the premises. The applicant sought a direction from the court for the Official Liquidator to deliver possession of the property, arguing that the transaction was bona fide and should not be declared void. Judgment: The court, after considering the rival contentions and the judgments of the Supreme Court, concluded that the transaction between the applicant and the company in liquidation was bona fide. The court noted that the loan agreements and mortgage deed were entered into much before the winding-up proceedings commenced and were registered with the Registrar of Companies. The court held that the term "void" in section 536(2) does not automatically render the disposition null and void and that bona fide transactions should not be declared void. Consequently, the court allowed the application and directed the Official Liquidator to deliver possession of the property to the applicant.
|
