9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound. The company submitted an application dated 23rd June, 1997 for issue of a certificate of registration under the provisions of section 451A of the RBI Act. On this application the company was inspected during the period from December, 1997 to January, 1998 and again many irregularities were found and, therefore, show-cause notice was issued as to why the application for issue of certificate of registration be not rejected. Ultimately, after the show cause notice application for certificate of registration was rejected. In the absence of certificate the company became disqualified to carry on the business of non-banking financial institutions. The RBI, accordingly, filed CP No. 265/1998 under section 45MC of the RBI Act for its winding up. Vide order dated 5th June, 1998 this Court admitted the petition and appointed the Official Liquidator (OL) attached to this Court as the Provisional Liquidator with direction to take charge of all the assets and properties of the company along with books of account and other records. He was also directed to take immediate custody of all the assets belonging to the company. Pursuant to these directions, the OL sprung into action and has tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receiver with directions to take over the possession of flats in question. 4. In all these suits the parties filed their consent terms and on the basis of the said consent terms decrees dated 21st January, 2000 were passed in suit Nos. 162/2000 and 163/2000, consent decree dated 4th January, 2000 was passed in suit No. 2/2000 and consent decree dated 31st December, 1999 was passed in suit No. 7167/1999. These decrees were passed when Dr. Sukhvir Singh appeared through counsel in the aforesaid cases; took notice on behalf of the company with the result notice of motion was dispensed with and the parties led the consent terms. Exactly this very modus was adopted in all the four cases. 5. When this application came up for hearing on 7th July, 2000, an interim order was passed staying the proceedings in the aforesaid suits and also directing that the decrees, if any, passed in the said suits shall not be executed without the leave of this Court. Status quo with regard to possession was also directed to be maintained. 6. Since Ms. Swati Verma, Smt. Gitanjali Kumar Krishna Pratap Singh, Mrs. Sunita P. Aggarwal and Ms. Bharti Bhagwan Jadhav claim that they had purchased t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court of Bombay for specific performance and in that suit consent decree dated 21st January, 2000 was passed when the consent terms duly signed by both the parties were filed in the Court. Regarding Flat No. 104 10. 17-7-1997 - Terms of proposal submitted by purported purchaser Mrs. Bharti Bhagwan Jhadav along with Rs. 30 lakhs in cash. 12-6-1997 - Proposal accepted by the Board. 17-7-1997 - Agreement to sell executed and possession given. 21-1-2000 - Thereafter, she filed suit No. 163/2000 in the High Court of Bombay for specific performance and in that suit consent decree dated 21st January, 2000 was passed when the consent terms duly signed by both the parties were filed in the Court. Regarding Flat No. 504. 11. 3-6-1997 - Terms of proposal submitted by purported purchaser Mrs. Sunita P. Agarwal along with Rs. 30 lakhs in cash. 3-6-1997 - Proposal accepted by the Board. 11-6-1997 - Agreement to sell executed and possession given. 4-1-2000. - Thereafter, she files suit No. 2/2000 in the High Court of Bombay for specific performance and in that suit consent decree dated 4th January, 2000 was passed when the consent terms duly signed by both the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents were manipulated/fabricated. He also pointed out discrepancies in the said documents which, according to him, would clinch the issue and clearly demonstrate that the documents are fabricated. For example, in the case of flat No. 105 allegedly sold to Shrimati Gitanjali Kumar Krishna Pratap Singh purported proposal is dated 21st July, 1997 along with deposit of Rs. 30 lakhs whereas the Board meeting is shown to have taken place much earlier i.e. 12th June, 1997 accepting the said proposal which was not possible at all, as to how the Board could accept on 12th June, 1997 a proposal which was not submitted by that time but was allegedly submitted on 21st July, 1997. He argued that since the documents were forged, such mistakes occurred and while creating the documents the parties unwittingly committed these mistakes. 14. Learned counsel for the intervenors, on the other hand, submitted that Dr. Sukhvir Singh was duly authorized and he represented so to the intervenors and, therefore, the transactions were entered into by the intervenors believing in said authorization of Dr. Sukhvir Singh. He further submitted that payment in cash was given as Mr. V.K. Sharma needed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmore, on the very first date in all these suits and without notice to the Official Liquidator, Dr. Sukhvir Singh appeared through counsel and consent terms were filed on the basis of which suits were decreed. The Bombay High Court was not informed about the liquidation proceedings or the appointment of the provisional liquidator by this Court. In fact, it appears, there is no averments made about this order in the suits filed. The company is impleaded as the defendant and after the appointment of the provisional liquidator, it is only he who could represent the company. It is, thus, clear that not only the proceedings in the suits were impermissible as they were initiated without the leave of the Court, even they appear to be collusive as well. Such a decree will neither be binding on the Official Liquidator or the company and would be void. It is not necessary to take steps for recall of those decrees by filing appropriate proceedings in those suits. The Company Court seized with liquidated proceedings has ample power to pass necessary directions in this behalf. This aspect is succinctly explained and elaborated by the Supreme Court in the case of Sudarsan Chits ( I ) Ltd. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
