9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resaid application is filed under the provisions of section 446(1) read with section 537(1) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (in short the Act ) praying for permission to take over the assets of the company under liquidation by the applicant-KSFC in exercise of their statutory powers under section 29 of the State Finance Corporations Act (in short the SFC Act ) as also to take into their fold some of the assets of the company which are with M/s. Elegant Rocks (P.) Ltd., 2nd respondent to this application, who, it appears, had instituted a suit against the company under liquidation for recovery of certain amount in O.S. No. 15579/2000 before the City Civil Court at Bangalore and had also obtained an order of attachment before judgment in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defendant company was confirmed. Further, an option was also given to the defendant company to execute security bond to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs in which event the attached goods shall be redelivered to the company. 7. It is in the background of such developments, the present application has come up for orders today before this court. I have heard Sri. D.S. Joshi, learned counsel for the KSFC, Sri. Deepak, learned counsel for the Official Liquidator, and Sri. Paras Jain, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 8. Further development to the order dated 25-8-2000 of this court in C.R.P. Nos. 2555, 2556 and 2557/2000 is that petition for winding up had been presented before this court and that this court in fact passed an order of wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties that security was never furnished and as such the proposed attachment continued to subsist but whether attachment continues to be remain in force or is lifted is the question. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 15579/2000 does not have right to retain the goods that he took into his possession pursuant to the order of attachment that had been passed by the Trial Court in the suit. With the subsequent development of 1st respondent company having been ordered to be wound up and Official Liquidator having been put in charge, he is entitled to take into his possession and custody all assets of the company under liquidation. It is also the duty of the persons who are holding any of the assets of the company to hand over or to deliver it to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14. The properties subjected to attachment in terms of the Order 38 Rule 5 CPC are one which is available to the decree holder to look for execution of the decree in the event of decree being not satisfied. Further, even such attachments are subject to prior charges if any existing on such properties before attachment is made. Admittedly, Sri. Joshi, learned counsel for the KSFC, claims that the KSFC has prior charge over the assets of the company in which event attachment before judgment which is still in operation in favour of 2nd respondent is subject to such prior charge. This aspect is disputed by Sri. Paras Jain, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, by contending that the attached goods were not the subject-matter of any prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
