9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charge sheet has been served against him. It is also not in dispute that though total land was more than 5 acres, but his claim is only with regard to 1.20 acres and not for the rest of the area, though sold in the same manner. In view of the admitted facts as mentioned above, we find no ground made out to interfere with the order passed by learned Judge. - O.S.A. NO. 129 OF 2007 - - - Dated:- 21-10-2008 - S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA AND M. VENUGOPAL, JJ. R. Thiagarajan for the Appellant. M. Ravindran, T.K. Seshadri and R. Murari for the Respondent. JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. - In the company petition, the appellant, R. Vijayakumar filed company application, C.A. No. 1037 of 2006 to set aside the sale pursuant to order dated 11-11-2003, passed by the court in C.A. No. 211 of 2003 in respect of lands situated in survey No. 3 to an extent of 1.20 acres in Kazhipattur village, Kanchipuram district. The learned Judge having rejected the application, the present appeal has been preferred. 2. According to the appellant, agreement for sale of certain lands were reached between M/s. Good Luck Inn (P.) Ltd., represented by its managing director, Mr. R. Vijayakumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rised in survey No. 20, measuring an extent of 5.42 acres or thereabout. Sale value Rs. 27.10 lakhs Agreed sale consideration was 27.10 lakhs. Amount received by appellant Rs. 1.90 lakhs by cheque bearing No. 072602, dated 28-1-1994 drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Kodambakkam Branch. Agreement for sale dated 24-1-1994 Another agreement dated 24-1-1994 was entered into in respect of the property situate at Kazhipattur village, measuring an extent of 5.28 acres or thereabout comprised in various survey Nos. Sale consideration Rs. 26.40 lakhs Total sale consideration that has been fixed was Rs. 26.40 lakhs. Amount received Rs. 1,00,000 Amount received Rs. 1,00,000 by way of demand draft dated 31-1-1994 in the name of Mrs. E. Chinnammal. The balance sale consideration payable within a period of 6 months. Since the sale transaction could not be completed within the stipulated period of six months from the date of the respective agreements for sale, the agreements stood terminated and cancelled. The appellant, the third party files a memo intimating the administrator that he has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s having not registered, there was no sale in favour of the company in liquidation and third party s properties cannot be auction sold in a company petition for liquidation against the company. ( b )The appellant was neither noticed nor had any knowledge of the order passed by the court directing the official liquidator to auction sell the land, as he was not a party to the application, C.A. No. 211 of 2003. 6. It was submitted that the learned Judge failed to notice the aforesaid fact relating to non-registration of the documents amounting to no transfer in favour of company nor decided the question of validity of auction without notice to the appellant. It was informed that neither any encumbrance certificate was obtained nor original title deed was handed over to the company, and, without verifying the same the court ordered for auction sale of 7.875 acres of land. 7. Mr. M. Ravindran, learned senior counsel and administrator for the company under liquidation and the official liquidator refuted the allegations that the appellant had no knowledge with regard to the auction. It was submitted that the appellant had not come with clean hands ; he had prior knowledge of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be pursued to give equal extent of land, i.e., 5.51 acres of land elsewhere in the same village. 12. In the said application, the appellant, R. Vijayakumar filed objection. In the said objection, R. Vijayakumar (appellant herein) gave details of agreement signed between 1994 and 1996 in favour of Mr. C. Natesan of the company. All the facts as shown and grounds taken in the present appeal have also been brought to the notice of the court. Only after hearing the parties, including the appellant herein, the court passed an order on 18-1-2001. Notice was ordered to R. Vijayakumar and also to the Government of Tamil Nadu. Since the interest of large number of depositors of Anubhav group of companies was involved, it was directed that investigation should be conducted by CB-CID of the State of Tamil Nadu by higher officers, not lower in the rank than that of the Superintendent of Police. 13. It is not in dispute that after the aforesaid order an investigation was made by CB-CID and appellant has been charge sheeted in a criminal case along with other State Government officials. The appellant, R. Vijayakumar, challenged the abovesaid order of the court before the Division Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent, J. Sekar is not under challenge in the present appeal. 17. The question whether the transfer made by the appellant in favour of the company was legal or not was not to be determined in the present company petition. If the company was in possession of the land, as was shown before learned Judge in their affidavit, if any amount was due to the company it was well within the jurisdiction of the court to auction sell the property. The order of the court dated 9-4-2003, directing the official liquidator to auction sell the property by publication of notice in eight national newspapers having not been challenged, the matter could not have been reopened in the company petition. 18. We find the appellant also suppressed material fact that out of the total lands he sold some of the Government lands and for that charge sheet has been served against him. It is also not in dispute that though total land was more than 5 acres, but his claim is only with regard to 1.20 acres and not for the rest of the area, though sold in the same manner. In view of the admitted facts as mentioned above, we find no ground made out to interfere with the order passed by learned Judge. 19. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
