9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny Act, 1056 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as the said agreement for sale/sale deed was executed within a period of one year from the date of presentation of the winding up petition i.e. , April 15, 1998. In this connection, he relied on the provisions contained in section 531A of the Act, which, inter alia , provides that any transfer of property movable or immovable by a company not being in the ordinary course of its business and/or for valuable consideration, if made within a period of one year before the presentation of the winding up petition shall be void against the liquidator and in the instant case winding up petition being filed on April 15, 1998, the agreement for sale/sale deed being executed on October 20, 1997, wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 59, fixing June 26, 1998, as the date for hearing of the matter but before the said date, i.e. , on May 15, 1998, itself the official liquidator, the Patna High Court was appointed provisional liquidator dispensing with service of notice on the company as is required under subsection (2) of section 450 of the Act since the winding up petition itself was presented by the company on the basis of the shareholders and as the formal winding up order is not passed till date the request made by the provisional liquidator to annul the agreement for sale/sale deed dated October 20, 1997, is absolutely without jurisdiction as according to learned counsel this court will have jurisdiction to annul the sale deed at the request of the official liquidat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the official liquidator and he can always take steps for protecting the interest of the company. In the circumstances, for failure to pass a formal winding up order in these proceedings, request of the official liquidator to annul the agreement for sale/sale deed is not premature and without jurisdiction. Now I shall take up the other point raised by learned counsel for Smt. Shakun Kedia that she being a bona fide purchaser of the properties of the company for valuable consideration of Rs. 5,00,000 paid vide receipt No. 4296 dated October 13, 1997, annexure 2/1 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Smt. Shakun Kedia, the transaction should not be annulled as void as there is absolutely no connection between her and the ex-directo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
