9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation be fixed and the Official Liquidator be directed to disclaim the said land under section 535 of the Companies Act and the amount so fixed by this Court may be directed to be deposited by the applicant and further that the Official Liquidator be directed to transfer/assign the reversionary rights and other interests in the said land in favour of the applicant on the capitalised value so fixed by this Court. The piece of land which is in possession of the applicant Podar Mills Ltd. belongs to the Jaipur Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (the company in liquidation) which was ordered to be wound up by this Court vide order dated December 2, 1983. After the winding up order all the properties of the company in liquidation shall be deemed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initiated by the Official Liquidator deserves to be dismissed in absence of the leave obtained from the Bombay High Court. This Court vide order dated July 5, 1991 allowed the Official Liquidator to implead the Court Receiver as party in the aforesaid application after obtaining leave from the Bombay High Court. The Official Liquidator through advocate filed application in the Bombay High Court and the same remained undecided and in the meantime the recovery suit came to transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal -I, Mumbai. The Debt Recovery Tribunal vide order dated November 22, 2001 discharged the Court Receiver with a direction to hand over the possession to the applicant. The applicant in these circumstances filed this application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 390.63 lakhs being the amount in the Valuation Report dated 29-10-2004 given by J.K. Murty and Company, Mumbai (The Valuer appointed by SBI) plus interest on the amount from the date of valuation till date at such rate as may be deemed fair and reasonable by this Hon ble Court. 5. After submission of the written submission and the offer tendered by the applicant Podar Mills, this Court again listed the matter on May 19, 2006 and the matter was fixed for further submissions of the parties on May 26, 2006 on the offer submitted by the applicant Podar Mills. 6. Having heard the submissions advanced before me. I am of the view that the applicant being the lessee, has no preferential right to purchase the property. In all fairness ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
