9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (9) TMI 418 - HC - Companies LawWinding up - Avoidance of certain attachment, executions etc. - public auction - Held that - There was default on the part of the appellant company in repayment of the debt to PICUP pursuant to which attachment order of the property was passed which is valid in the eye of law. The property was sold in public auction in terms of the provisions of UP Public Moneys (Recovery of Debts) Act, 1972 which has become final and binding and, therefore, the learned Company Judge was justified in holding that public auction held in 1984 in favour of PICUP cannot be challenged collaterally before the Company Court inasmuch as the said auction was taken in a different proceeding altogether which has also become final and binding. The learned Company Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the challenge to the validity of the auction cannot be sustained or even entertained in a proceeding pending before the Company Judge. Remedy, if any, that the appellant had was to take up the matter under the relevant provisions and may be under the provisions of UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 but not under the proceeding of this nature. Remedies availed of by the appellant did not go in its favour. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and order passed by the learned Company Judge is legal and valid. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Locus standi of respondent No. 2 in filing the Company Application. 2. Legality and jurisdiction of the Company Judge in passing the order for release of property. 3. Validity of the actions taken regarding the property under the UP Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. 4. Jurisdiction of the Official Liquidator to attach the property. 5. Validity of the lease deed filed by respondent No. 2. 6. Challenge to the legality of the sale of the property and judicial remedies availed by the appellant. Issue 1: The appellant challenged the legality of the order allowing the Company Application filed by respondent No. 2, questioning the locus standi of the respondent to make the application in the winding-up proceeding. The appellant argued that the Company Judge acted illegally and without jurisdiction in directing the release of the property. Issue 2: The judgment detailed the history of the case, including the default on loans by the company, attachment of property by PICUP under the UP Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, and subsequent events leading to the sale and transfer of the property to respondent No. 2. The Company Judge allowed the restoration of the Company Petition, leading to the challenge of the property's status and the subsequent sealing by the Official Liquidator. Issue 3: The Court analyzed the legality of the actions taken under the UP Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, emphasizing that the sale and transfer of the property to respondent No. 2 were valid and binding. The Court held that challenges to the auction and sale could not be entertained in the Company Court and suggested alternative legal avenues for the appellant to pursue. Issue 4: The Court examined the jurisdiction of the Official Liquidator to attach the property and concluded that the sealing of the property in 1996 was not in accordance with the law as the property was no longer an asset of the company under liquidation at that time. Issue 5: The judgment addressed the validity of the lease deed filed by respondent No. 2, dismissing the appellant's claim of it being invalid and fabricated. The Court found no substantiated evidence to support the appellant's allegations against the lease deed. Issue 6: The Court discussed the appellant's challenges to the legality of the property sale and the judicial remedies pursued by the appellant, including appeals and petitions that were ultimately dismissed. The Court affirmed the finality and validity of the sale of the property, concluding that the Company Judge's decision was legal and valid. In conclusion, the Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it based on the detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the locus standi of respondent No. 2, the legality of the property actions, the jurisdiction of the Official Liquidator, the validity of the lease deed, and the challenges to the property sale under the UP Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972.
|
