9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uidator. Though served, none appeared for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The applicant by way of Judges Summons has approached this Court with following prayers: "(A)This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the applicant is not liable to pay the outstanding dues of respondent No. 2 of the Company in Liquidation and in respect of freehold land and building admeasuring 24,281 sq. meters situated at Survey No. 52 paiki at Village : Bamanbore, Tal. Chotila, Distt. Surendranagar together with factory building and other movable assets purchased by the applicant apropos to an order dated 7-1-2008 made by this Hon'ble Court in OLR No. 136/2007, in the interest of justice and equity; (B)This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one M/s Tirupati Enterprises, Ahmedabad submitted the bid for Lot No. I before the Sale Committee. As bid of M/s Tirupati Enterprises was found to be the highest at Rs. 2,09,00,000 towards the purchase of Lot I, the Official Liquidator submitted Official Liquidator Report No. 136/2007 before this Court for confirmation of sale. 4. This Court passed order dated 7-1-2008 in OLR No. 136 of 2007 confirming sale of Lot No. I in favour of Tirupati Enterprises at Rs. 2,09,00,000 on the terms and conditions as set out in the tender document. Pursuant to the order of confirmation, the auction purchaser was permitted to appoint one nominee. Accordingly, the auction purchaser appointed the present applicant as its nominee. The applicant therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ired to be settled by Official Liquidator in order of priority as provided in the said Sections. He further submits that the respondent No. 2 has to lodge its claim before the Official Liquidator for the dues of the Company in liquidation. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Baroda City Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Gujarat 2010(2) GLH 525 to submit that the dues of respondent No. 2 do not have any priority. The Division Bench allowed the prayers of the concerned petitioners for directing the Mamlatdar concerned to cancel the charge of the Sales Tax Department and for entering the name of the auction purchasers. Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered by the learned Single ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iquidation. Accordingly, the auction purchaser cannot be saddled with any liability for the pre-liquidation period over the assets purchased by the applicant. Even otherwise, in view of the provisions of section 530 of the Act, it is clear that the respondent No. 2 cannot claim any priority and the claim of the respondent No. 2 is not sustainable. This Court has already discussed the issue at length in the aforesaid two judgments. In view of the discussion and the observations made by the Division Bench as also by the learned Company Judge in the above referred judgments, it is clear that the auction purchaser and the Official Liquidator are right while contending that the auction purchaser is not liable to discharge any of the liabilities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
