9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (7) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... took a lease of the two godowns at Farm House, Link Road, Faridabad, from Dalbir Singh (Grewal), the appellant herein, for 11 months at a rental of Rs. 700 per month. At least that is the lease which has been forwarded on behalf of the appellant to the advocate on record of the official liquidator. The official liquidator took possession of the said godowns on 24th July, 1974, and put his lock and seal. On 29th July, 1974, one Sri Sohan Lal Grover, advocate for Dalbir Singh (Grewal), wrote a letter to the official liquidator requesting him, inter alia , to pay the arrears of rents, as Dalbir Singh, according to the said advocate, came to know that his tenant's firm had gone into liquidation. It would be necessary to refer to the said letter which is at page 37 of the paper book. The said letter was addressed to, as mentioned before, the official liquidator on behalf of the present appellant and by the said letter it was stated that by a lease dated 26th April, 1973, between Sri Surinder Paul Mehta, son of Sri Amir Chand Mehta, of 20, Old Ballygunge Road, Calcutta, and Shri Dalbir Singh, the said Surinder Paul Mehta became a tenant of a portion of the said premises, which tenancy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in question and that the appellant was aware of the same and that the official liquidator was in possession of the said premises, as would be evident from the letter of the advocate of Mr. Dalbir Singh at page 37 of the paper-book, where there was a request to "kindly vacate at the earliest". Here the expression "firm" had been used to convey the meaning of the company, which is in liquidation. On behalf of the appellant, however, reliance was placed on the letter of 11th February, 1975. He emphasised a point that there was no jural relationship between the appellant and the company and as such the official liquidator was estopped from contending that an order could be made against the present appellant under section 446 of the Act. The said lease was, of course, unregistered. Thereafter, it appears admittedly from the statement of the official liquidator, as corroborated by the statement made in the valuation report, that the goods of the company were in the godowns ; there was an inventory made, a valuation made on or about 10th May, 1977. It is the case of the appellant that Mehta, since deceased, handed over vacant possession of the said godown on part payment of Rs. 3,500 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e paper-book, the valuer valued the assets lying at the said godowns at a total sum of Rs. 1,29,471.45 and a further valuation report was made in respect of other materials lying at the other place as it appears from the valuation report dated 16th July, 1979. These valuation reports have been annexed to the affidavit filed on behalf of the official liquidator. The learned judge has also noted, as would be evident from the letter, that the present appellant knew that the said godown and the goods were in the possession of the official liquidator, who had sealed the godowns. It also appears that the State Bank of India had filed a suit for the enforcement of its security, which was alleged to be the goods of the company, which were lying hypothecated with the State Bank of India and the said suit was filed with the leave of court in 1976. In the said suit between the State Bank of India and Sakaw Industries, the official liquidator was appointed as the Receiver and it was clear from the records that the said respondent by its said advocate's letter had admitted that the official liquidator was in possession of the said godown and put his seal. Subsequent to the order for sale, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was contended, however, that the valuation reports, upon which the learned judge relied, were not legal documents because the said documents were not supported by the affidavit of the valuer. In our opinion, this cannot be accepted. These valuation reports were made pursuant to the orders of the court by a valuer appointed and approved by the court. The valuation reports have been annexed to the affidavit filed on behalf of the official liquidator. The appellant had the opportunity to controvert any statement or allegation made in the said valuation reports but the appellant did not do so. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial court had acted without legal materials. It was then contended that if the appellant was guilty, as it was alleged, then he should have been proceeded against for contempt of court ; the alleged act complained of amounted to a criminal contempt and the company court would have no jurisdiction to entertain this. In aid of this submission, reliance was placed on the observations of the Special Bench decision of this court in the case of Legal Remembrancer v. Matilal Ghose reported in [1913] ILR 41 Cal. 173, at pages 175, 221 and 259. It is true tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... U.P. [1979] 118 ITR 326 (SC). In our opinion, no question of estoppel arises. Here, the official liquidator ( sic ) was not denying that the goods were not lying in the said godown. Admittedly, even according to the letter of the appellant, the goods of the company were lying in that custody and the goods were found to be in the custody or would have been wrongly taken away by the present appellant, irrespective of any jural relationship. Therefore, the jural relationship between the appellant and the company in question is wholly irrelevant and no question of estoppel, as such, arises. In support of the plea of estoppel, reliance was placed on articles 338, 424 and 423 of Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edition, vol. 15, at page 169. In our opinion, as we have mentioned before, the question of estoppel does not arise in this case. The amplitude of the power under section 446, as we have mentioned before, has been discussed in the decision referred to hereinbefore. In the case of Dhirendra Chandra Pal v. Associated Bank of Tripura Ltd. [1955] 25 Comp. Cas. 19 (SC), the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the provisions of section 45B of the Banking Companies Act, 194 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
