9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 128. It is further prayed that if the land of Khasra No. 128 has wrongly been included in the land of the company (in liquidation), the same may kindly be excluded from the lands sold to the auction purchaser the respondent No. 2. It is lastly prayed that any other appropriate orders/directions which this Court deems just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may be passed in favour of the applicants. 2. The reply to this application is filed by the official liquidator, to which the applicants have filed the rejoinder. The reply to this application has also been filed by the respondent No. 2- auction purchaser, to which also the rejoinder has been filed by the applicants. Both the respondents have contested the appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eliminary objections submitted that this application is maintainable under rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, read with section 151, as the action of the official liquidator of selling the land in question is wholly without authority. It is submitted that there is no delay in raising the objection. Otherwise also when the sale of land is void ab initio, the delay in filing the application may not come in the way of the Court to do the substantial justice to applicants. On merits, it is submitted that the official liquidator has no right to sell the property which does not belong to company (in liquidation). The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the application on merits also. 6. I have given my thoughtful considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtain, or dispose of ( a )*** ( b )*** ( c )*** ( d )any question of priorities or any other question whatsoever, whether of law or fact, which may relate to or arise in course of the winding up of the company. 11. The question which is sought to be raised and is raised in this application falls under the clause ( d ) of sub-section (2) of the section 446. A specific provision for consideration, adjudication and decision of this question raised in the application is there in the Companies Act, 1956. When there is a specific provision to take care and deal with the question raised in this application, the rule 9 of the Rules, 1959 is not attracted. It is the grievance of the applicant that the land which has been sold by the offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within reasonable time. In this case, the delay of 13 years is made by the applicants in approaching this Court, after the sale of land in dispute, which has not been explained by them. From para No. 12 of the application, I find that under letter dated 30-7-1984 (Annexure-6) the official liquidator has delivered the possession of the land in dispute to the respondent No. 2, auction purchaser. Leaving apart the letter dated 30-7-1984, the applicant was known of the fact that the land in dispute has been sold by auction and same is purchased by the respondent No. 2 and they have to bring the matter before the Company Court within reasonable time and that has not been done. This application filed by applicants deserves to be dismissed on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
