9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the factory premises. On 10-6-1998 the Liquidator sealed the said premises and took possession thereof. 3. Subsequently, the State Bank of India, Juhu Tara Road Branch, Mumbai filed a suit being Suit No. 4593 of 1997 in this Court and a Court Receiver, High Court, Mumbai was appointed as Receiver in favour of the Bank. The applicants in Company Application No. 40 of 2002 are claiming that under Hire Purchase Agreement dated 5-11-1993 executed by and between the applicants as well as the company known as Rohan Stampings India (P.) Ltd., some of the machineries were given on hire purchase to the said company M/s. Rohan Stampings India (P) Ltd. The case of the applicants is that the machineries/equipments with fillings, tools, accessories and additions as described in First Schedule to the said agreement was agreed to be let out to the company by the applicants who were the owners thereof. The said machineries were worth Rs. 4,28,575 and the company agreed to repay the said amount in monthly instalments as specified in the agreement alongwith various finance charges and other amounts set out therein. 4. In view of the defaults in repayment of amounts of instalments under the said tw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor which was placed on the said premises. Accordingly, by order dated 11-3-2005 I directed Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Mumbai to issue Show Cause Notice to the directors of the company as well as Reliable Disposable Glass Containers (P.) Ltd. showing cause why action should not be initiated against them for breaking the lock and seal of the Official Liquidator and disposing of the said properties when in fact the Liquidator is appointed as Provisional Liquidator in respect of machineries lying therein. 7. Pursuant thereto a Show Cause Notice No. 3 of 2005 was issued to the aforesaid four persons namely (1) Shri Rajeev M. Dixit, (2) Shri Vijay R. Garge and (3) Shri Dilip Kumar Das. Three of whom are the directors and the 4th person is the purchaser of the said premises. Notice which was sought to be served on Rajeev Dixit could not be served because of non-co-operation and non-furnishing of details by his son Rohan Dixit and accordingly, by order dated 15-4-2005 a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against the said Rajeev Dixit. Insofar as Dilip Kumar Das is concerned the same has not been served as none has been found at the addresses given. I have also issued a Non- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Bank of India has registered the particulars of the charge with the Co-operative Society. 9. It is their further case that the said company being purchaser of the premises enquired with the society of the said premises but the said Co-operative Society never informed them about the filing of winding-up petition and/or appointment of Official Liquidator or placing any seals or locks on the said premises. He has further stated that he had detailed discussion with Rajeev Dixit, Contemnor No. 1 and he informed the purchaser that the State Bank of India has filed the suit against the company in the Debt Recovery Tribunal. However, they are willing to accept Rs. 140 lakhs in full and final settlement of their claim and are willing to release their mortgage in respect of the said premises. Accord-ingly, purchaser company signed Deed of Assignment with Mr. Rajeev Dixit on behalf of Rohan Stampings (P.) Ltd. in respect of the said Plot No. 27. One of the clauses in the deed of assignment indicates that the purchaser of the company were aware of the fact that the proceedings were pending in the Debt Recovery Tribunal being DRT-III, Mumbai which was filed by the State Bank of India and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under : "Mrs. Bhattacharya pointed out to me the industrial shed of M/s. Rohan Stampings Pvt. Ltd. The said industrial shed was having 2 iron-gates. Mrs. Bhattacharya opened one of the Iron gate and I entered into the industrial shed. The main entrance of the industrial shed is on the eastern side of the property. I noticed that there was a rolling shutter. The said rolling shutter was under lock and key. Mrs. Bhattacharya told me that there is entrance from the rear side of the said property. Accordingly, I went to the rear side of the said property and I noticed that on the southern and northern side walls of the said property there were entrances. The said entrances were without any door. The said entrances were simply covered by putting C.I.C. Sheets. Mrs. Bhattacharya told me that the said C.I.C. Sheets which were put for covering the entrances by removing the C.I.C. Sheets from the roof of the mazanine floor and the roof of the sanitary block of the said property. After entering in the said industrial gala, I noticed that the said industrial gala is admeasuring about 3,000 sq. ft. and the same was divided into 2 parts by putting bricks massionary wall. The entire structure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. It has been contended that the alleged seal was put after two years thus indicating the lack of urgency on the part of the Official Liquidator. No watchman or guards were posted to protect the premises and that the action on the part of the Liquidator to seal the premises is totally wrong and unwarranted. It has been contended that there is a gross negligence on the part of the Official Liquidator. The entire machinery and movables of premises were in danger. It has been submitted that in view of wrongful sealing of the premises, the present show-cause notice must be dropped. 15. I have heard the Counsel at length. It is an admitted position that pursuant to order dated 5-6-1996 Official Liquidator sealed the premises of the company because he could not segregate and identify all the machineries of which he was appointed as Official Liquidator. It is also not in dispute that without the permission of the Liquidator and without the permission of this Court the premises of the said company was broke open and the said premises is sold to said Reliance Disposable Glass Containers (P.) Ltd. It is also an admitted position that the machineries being Exhibits "A" and "C" to the Compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed of the some of the assets of the said company because in DRT proceedings the Liquidator was already representing the said company. In view thereof, the contention that the said company is bona fide purchaser without any notice cannot be accepted. 18. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances of the case I hold both Rajeev Dixit and the said company Rohan Stampings (P.) Ltd. as guilty of contempt of Court for breaking open the lock and seal of the premises which was placed by Official Liquidator and disposing of the plant and machinery in respect of which Liquidator was appointed by this Court. I defer the hearing of the show-cause notice as against Dilip Kumar Das till Non-Bailable Warrant is executed as against him. Insofar as Vijay R. Garge is concerned, he is discharged as he was director only during the period of 1991-92. In the aforesaid circumstances, I pass the following order: 19. The said Rajeev Dixit is held guilty of contempt of Court and I impose simple imprisonment of 2 months and fine of Rs. 2,000. In view of conduct on his part and on the part of his son, Rohan Dixit to avoid the service of show-cause notice and fixing this Court to issue non-bailable war ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
