9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Companies Act having conducted without the leave of the court and to direct the second respondent to hand over the property and to direct the Karnataka State Financial Corporation not to execute sale deed or collect sale proceeds from the second respondent. 2. It is averred in the application that M/s. Metallic Soaps and Chemicals (P.) Ltd., has been ordered to be wound up by order dated 13-8-1993, passed in Company Petition Nos. 90 of 1987 and 74 of 1989, and the official liquidator attached to this Court was appointed and the official liquidator was directed to take charge of all the assets, properties and effects of the company. The official liquidator sent notice to the ex-directors of the company on 1-10-1993, to hand over ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice and that he is ready to pay the balance amount as per the agreement and the amount could not be deposited as he has obtained stay of the demand notice issued by the Karnataka State Financial Corporation in C.A. Nos. 1008 and 1009 of 2000, on 24-2-2000. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Today an application has been filed seeking permission to deposit Rs. 3,75,000. 7. It is clear from the perusal of the material on record that Company Petition Nos. 90 of 1987 and 74 of 1989, were allowed and the company was ordered to be wound up by order dated August 13, 1993. Sale has been conducted on 21-2-1994, and the second respondent was the highest bidder and thereafter an agreement was entered into bet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e balance amount of Rs. 3,75,000 as per the letter dated 21-2-1994. It is clear from the provision of section 537 of the Companies Act that when an order of winding up is passed, the property belonging to the company cannot be sold without the leave of the Court. There is no merit in the contention of learned counsel appearing for the first respondent that the first respondent being the secured creditor was entitled to sell the property. Section 537(1)( b ) of the Companies Act, 1956, clearly states that no sale can be held without the leave of the Court of any of the properties or effects of the company after such commencement and any such sale held shall be void. 10. In the present case, admittedly, permission of this Court has not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
