9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is given in document No. 4 at page 17 of the material papers and also return to the applicant an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs brought in by him as promoters contribution from the funds/assets of the company and further direct the respondents 2 and 3 to return to the applicant Rs. 2 lakhs each received by them as upfront payment. It is stated by the petitioner that he is a regular customer forming a major clientele and dependent upon the products of the company in liquidation for petitioner s own manufacturing activity. When the Satya Sai Polymers Ltd. company is not in a position to conduct the business, the Board of directors requested the petitioner to takeover the company to strengthen its management by becoming its managing director. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the company and referred the matter to this Court. 2. The APSFC sealed the factory premises while it was in operation on 28-6-1996 and also advertised for sale of machinery, on 2-7-1997. This Court by order, dated 3-7-1997, ordered winding up on a reference made by the BIFR. The APSFC filed C.A. No. 102 of 1999 under section 446 to remain outside the winding up proceedings and proceed against the property seized by him. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner brought the machinery which is approximately valued at Rs. 25,000 as per the list enclosed to the application at page 17 of document 4. The said machinery was brought by him subject to approval by the BIFR and installed some of the machinery i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent is subject to acceptance of the revival proposal of the BIFR and that his appointment as managing director was also subject to approval of IDBI and that since approval was not given and the scheme was rejected, his position in the company under liquidation is that of a third party being neither a shareholder nor a creditor and that in view of the same, his entire investment in the company under liquidation including Rs. 2 lakhs each paid to the second and third respondents should be refunded/returned to him is untenable. The said amount was paid by him to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 towards the dues payable by the company under liquidation for allowing him to show his bona fides and the entire machinery brought in by the applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the third parties like the petitioner, this court will not exercise any power to grant permission to APSFC to proceed against the properties belonging to the third parties. If the third respondent seized the property which did not belong to the company, then the petitioners can take appropriate proceedings against APSFC for release of such property which did not form part of the assets of the company. But this court cannot direct the APSFC or the official liquidator to release the seized property which did not belong to the company. With regard to the amounts invested by the petitioner in the company in liquidation, his position will be like that of an unsecured creditor and as and when the properties of the company in liquidation are sold, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
