9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id auction was taken in a different proceeding altogether which has also become final and binding. The learned Company Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the challenge to the validity of the auction cannot be sustained or even entertained in a proceeding pending before the Company Judge. Remedy, if any, that the appellant had was to take up the matter under the relevant provisions and may be under the provisions of UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 but not under the proceeding of this nature. Remedies availed of by the appellant did not go in its favour. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and order passed by the learned Company Judge is legal and valid. Appeal dismissed. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for release of the property. 3. In the light of the submission made before us, we heard the learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the entire records placed before us. 4. M/s. R.G. Soft Drinks Private Limited ( company for short), took loans from various quarters for its business. One of such loans was the advance granted by Pradeshiya Industrial Investment Corporation of UP ( PICUP for short). There was default on the part of the company in making repayment of the instalments towards the said loan amount. Consequent thereto, on 6-8-1983 PICUP attached the property of the company under the UP Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. 5. Some of the creditors, on the other hand, filed a winding up petition cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aling of the property. The aforesaid application was disposed of by the learned Company Judge under the impugned judgment and order, which is under challenge in this appeal. 10. Incidentally, we may point out at this stage that the respondent No. 2 also ran into financial difficulties. Proceedings were filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow which sold the property for payment of dues of the respondent No. 2. Against this, objections were filed by the Official Liquidator, but the said objections were dismissed by the Tribunal under order dated 23-1-2003. Pursuant thereto, physical possession of the property was handed over to the auction purchaser by the Tribunal. 11. C.P. No. 95/1983 was filed on 3-9-1983 for winding up of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 2-5-1995. The Company Judge while allowing the application noticed that there was substantial delay in filing the application and it may therefore look improper to recall the earlier order dated 19-2-1986 dismissing the Company Petition and held that the application for revival of the Company Petition filed under the signatures of the Managing Director of the company itself will be treated as a Company Petition, which was admitted on 2-5-1995. 12. The appellant now want to take advantage of sections 446 and 537 of the Companies Act, 1956 and pleads that sales made under the UP Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 and further transfer by the PICUP and DRT are illegal as these have taken place without permission of the Company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after the property was re-sold in favour of respondent No. 2 pursuant to which a fresh lease deed was executed in favour of respondent No. 2. Official Liquidator would have power and jurisdiction to attach the property and take the said property in his custody and possession only if the same was and continued to be the asset of the company, which is under liquidation. On the date when sealing of the property was done by the Official Liquidator, it was not the property of the appellant company, which was under the process of liquidation. 14. At one stage, Mr. G.P. Srivastava tried to contend that the lease deed filed in the case is invalid and fabricated by respondent No. 2. We are, however, unable to accept the aforesaid proposition whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court inasmuch as the said auction was taken in a different proceeding altogether which has also become final and binding. The learned Company Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the challenge to the validity of the auction cannot be sustained or even entertained in a proceeding pending before the Company Judge. Remedy, if any, that the appellant had was to take up the matter under the relevant provisions and may be under the provisions of UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 but not under the proceeding of this nature. Remedies availed of by the appellant did not go in its favour. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and order passed by the learned Company Judge is legal and vali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
