2000 (3) TMI 1037 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Company Court to grant the relief claimed by the purchaser.
2. Whether the relief was barred by limitation.
3. Determination of the land over which access should be granted.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Company Court to Grant the Relief Claimed by the Purchaser:

The primary issue was whether the Company Court had the jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed by the purchaser, which involved creating a right of way over a third party's property. The appellants argued that the Company Court could not encumber another's property that was not the subject matter of the winding-up proceedings. The court referred to Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, which limits the jurisdiction of the winding-up court to the property of the company in liquidation. The court concluded that the Company Court overstepped its jurisdiction by creating an encumbrance on the property of the appellants, who were not parties to the winding-up proceedings.

2. Whether the Relief was Barred by Limitation:

The appellants contended that any claim to access over their land was barred by limitation, arguing that any previous access was locked in 1967 and the claim was not pursued in a timely manner. The court did not find any express provision or evidence to support the creation of an easement by prescription. The court emphasized that the property was sold on an 'as is where is basis,' and the purchaser was aware of the landlocked nature of the property at the time of purchase.

3. Determination of the Land Over Which Access Should Be Granted:

The court examined whether the purchaser had any right to claim an easement of necessity over the appellants' land. The court referred to the original conveyance deed dated 19.10.66, which explicitly stated that the property was sold "free from all encumbrances." The court found that there was no express grant or implied reservation of any easement in the deed. The purchaser's claim for a right of way over the appellants' land was not supported by any pleading or documentation. The court also noted that an alternative access route existed through 10, Guha Road, albeit inconvenient, which negated the necessity for an easement over the appellants' property.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the Company Court had no jurisdiction to create an easement over the appellants' property and that the purchaser could not claim such a right based on the terms of the original conveyance. The judgment under appeal was set aside, and the purchaser was directed to take possession through the alternative route or seek a refund of the consideration money if possession could not be given through 10, Guha Road.

Separate Judgments:

V.K. Gupta, J., concurred with the judgment.

Final Decision:

The appeal was allowed, and the judgment under appeal was set aside.