9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Application by official liquidator seeking reliefs for payment of loan amounts, sale of mortgaged property, and costs. Dispute over loan amounts due under two accounts. Previous court orders for concession rate of interest and coercive actions. Dispute over the second loan amount and sale consideration. Adjudication of claim pending. Evidence recorded before the master. Official liquidator's submission of documentary evidence. Liability of respondents to pay the outstanding amount. Failure of respondents to avail opportunities to discharge liability. Legal provisions related to winding up procedures and powers of the liquidator. Detailed Analysis: 1. The official liquidator filed an application seeking various reliefs, including directing the respondents to pay the outstanding loan amounts with interest, permitting the sale of mortgaged property, and ordering payment of costs. The dispute arose regarding the loan amounts under two accounts, with the respondents failing to repay despite demand notices. 2. The official liquidator's report indicated that the respondents were debtors under registered mortgage deeds for two loan accounts. The liabilities of the respondents were ascertained based on the statement of affairs and debtors list filed by the company in liquidation. 3. Previous court orders provided for a concessional scheme reducing the interest rate, but the respondents failed to avail the benefits. The first respondent disputed the liability for the second loan amount, claiming it was part of a property sale consideration. 4. The court reviewed the history of the case, including coercive actions taken against the respondents for non-payment. Subsequent evidence revealed discrepancies in the respondents' claims regarding the second loan amount and sale consideration. 5. The court observed that the claim of the administrator was yet to be adjudicated on merits, and directed the matter to be remitted for further evidence. Witnesses were examined, and documentary evidence was presented before the court. 6. The official liquidator and the administrator argued based on the documentary evidence submitted, highlighting the lack of satisfactory explanations from the respondents. The court found the evidence established the liability of the respondents to the company in liquidation. 7. Despite multiple opportunities given to the respondents to discharge their liability, they failed to comply. The court emphasized the special procedure of winding up under the Companies Act and the powers of the liquidator to ensure the collection of outstanding amounts. 8. Considering the objectives of winding up proceedings, the court held the respondents liable to pay the outstanding amount with interest. Failure to comply would result in possession of the mortgaged property being transferred to the official liquidator for sale through public auction. 9. The court ordered the respondents to pay the outstanding amount within a specified time frame and authorized the liquidator to execute the decree for possession of the property if the respondents failed to comply. The decree was to be transmitted to the appropriate execution court for further action. 10. In conclusion, the court directed the official liquidator to proceed with the sale of the property through public auction and report back to the court for further instructions. This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and the court's decision on each aspect.
|
