9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Court for winding up of GAL - petitioner states that the price of the land which has been offered as security by the respondent is merely Rs. 200 to Rs. 300 per square metre and not Rs. 4,000 per square metre as mentioned in the proposal of the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner suggests that a valuer be appointed to value the plot which is being offered to the petitioner as security – Held that:- respondent company failed to pay its debt to the petitioners, in spite of the statutory notice having been served on it, therefore, petitioners approached this Court for winding up of the respondent company. After receipt of notice the respondent company was represented by a counsel, on 2nd February, 1998 counsel for the respondent made a statement that M/s. Delhi Automobiles Limited has immovable property, namely, 1, Sikandara Road, New Delhi. According to him this property was extremely valuable. He further stated that efforts were being made to sell this property and in case the property was sold, the money would first be utilized for meeting the amounts due to the creditors who filed petitions in this Court. respondent company failed to adhere to the schedule of paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Maruti vehicles against which GAL had collected crores of rupees from the market in the form of inter-corporate deposits/loans were non-existent and not genuine ones. So, it objected to GAL about the means adopted by it for collecting money from the market by putting the reputation of Maruti Udyog Ltd. at stake and that gave rise to disputes between GAL and Maruti Udyog Ltd. and because of that bookings of Maruti vehicles through GAL were stopped. That appears to have triggered off en bloc lodging of claims by the depositors with GAL but the investors were not paid back their money by GAL. During that period letters were exchanged between GAL and Maruti Udyog Ltd. and some kind of understanding appears to have been arrived at between the two and pursuant to that understanding GAL s Managing Director Mr. Ashwini Suri executed indemnity bond on behalf of GAL and also personal guarantee bond indemnifying Maruti Udyog Ltd. against any kind of demands against it by GAL s investors from whom GAL had taken inter-corporate loans against non-existent bookings of Maruti cars. Mr. G.Sagar Suri also executed a personal guarantee bond in favour of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Both father and son ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel for the petitioner states that the price of the land which has been offered as security by the respondent is merely Rs. 200 to Rs. 300 per square metre and not Rs. 4,000 per square metre as mentioned in the proposal of the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner suggests that a valuer be appointed to value the plot which is being offered to the petitioner as security. I am of the opinion that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner needs to be accepted. Accordingly, M/s. G.C. Sharma Sons, Architects Town Planners (Partner Mr. S.C. Sharma), 28/G-2, Connaught Place, New Delhi, Official Valuer for the banks, as suggested by the petitioner and accepted by the respondent, is appointed as valuer to value the plot of land which has been offered by the respondent to the petitioner to serve as a security for the debt due from the respondent to the petitioner....." 2-2-1998 "....It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that M/s. Delhi Automobiles Limited have immovable property, namely, 1, Sikandara Road, New Delhi. According to the learned counsel for the respondent the property is extremely valuable. He further states that efforts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re before this Court and in the event of the payments not being made by the said date, the company be deemed to have been wound-up and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court be deemed to have been appointed as the Liquidator of the Company. Learned counsel for the petitioners have no objection to the passing of the order of deemed winding-up in the light of the submission of learned counsel for the respondent. Having regard to the statement of learned counsel for the respondent and learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that the submission of Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the respondent, with regard to the deemed winding-up of the company should be accepted. Accordingly, it is directed that in case the admitted liability of the creditors who have filed petitions in this Court is not discharged by the respondent before 21st May, 1998, the Company will be deemed to have been wound-up and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court will act as the Liquidator of the Company. Mr. Sethi prays that in view of his statement that M/s. Ganga Automobiles will liquidate its liability to the creditors by 21st May, 1998 and in case that is not done the Company will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioners on the admitted rate of interest and will file a schedule of payment. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that Mr. Mukhinder Singh, a director of the respondent company, will give a statement that he will abide by the statements and undertakings given on behalf of the respondent, and in the event of the breach of the payment schedule he will be personally liable for the consequences arising from such a breach. Mr. Sibal states that Mr. Mukhinder Singh is present and is willing to make a statement to the above effect. Let the statement of Mr. Mukhinder Singh be recorded. Sd/- May 22, 1998 Anil Dev Singh, J. Statement of Mr. Mukhinder Singh has been recorded. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the order dated February 20, 1998 needs no variation....." 18-8-1998 "The petitioners are the creditors. The respondent company failed to pay its debt to the petitioners, in spite of the statutory notice having been served on it, therefore, petitioners approached this Court for winding up of the respondent company. After receipt of notice the respondent company was represent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rged by the respondent company before 21st May, 1998, the company would be deemed to have been wound up and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court would act as the Liquidator of the company. It was in this background that the order of attachment and sale of the property bearing No.1, Sikandara Road, New Delhi was kept in abeyance till 21st May, 1998. Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent company without insisting on the variation of the order dated 20th February, 1998 made a statement that his client would deposit a sum of Rs. 610 lakhs for being disbursed to the petitioners. The respondent company was to pay Rs. 40 lakhs on or before 15th July, 1998 and another sum of Rs. 40 lakhs on or before 14th August, 1998 and another sum of Rs. 40 lakhs on or before 30th September, 1998. Thereafter the respondent company was to pay Rs. 100 lakhs on or before 31st October, 1998 and Rs. 140 lakhs on or before 30th November, 1998 and finally the respondent company was to pay Rs. 250 lakhs on or before 31st December, 1998. Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate also stated that in case of default in the payment of any of the above instalments, it would be open to this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arising from such a breach. Since there is a deemed winding up order operating against the respondent company and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as the Liquidator of this company, the said order was kept in abeyance from time to time to enable the respondent company to pay up its debts. Number of opportunities were given to the respondent company to adhere to the schedule of payment as given by it before this Court on 22nd May, 1998. But the respondent company has faulted and thus committed a breach of the same. Thereafter, in these circumstances there is no alternative but to hold that respondent company stood would up and the Official Liquidator attached to this court who was appointed as Liquidator of the company to take into custody and possession the assets, effects and records of the respondent company as well as the assets movable and immovable of Mr. Mukhinder Singh, Director of the respondent company, who made himself personally liable for the consequences arising from such a breach. Necessary communication may also be sent to the Registrar of Companies. Notice in the prescribed form for making the order be published in the newspaper "States ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Girdhar Govind states that he would like to address argument. According to him his review application has yet not been disposed of. On his request, adjourned to 10th September, 1998." 4. GAL after the passing of the order dated 2-2-1998 regarding deemed attachment of the property at Sikandara Road had been contending before this Court that Mr. G. Sagar Suri, the then Chairman of M/s. Delhi Automobiles Ltd., had no authority to bind the said Company by making a statement before this Court that property No.1, Sikandara Road, New Delhi would be sold in order to liquidate the liabilities of GAL since GAL had nothing to do with M/s. Delhi Automobiles Ltd. So recalling of the order dated 2-2-1998 whereby it was ordered by the Court that in case the debts of the creditors of GAL were not paid off within the period of 3 months property No. 1, Sikandara Road, New Delhi shall be deemed to have been attached and become liable to be sold under the supervision of the Court was sought. However, that was not done and so an appeal was filed before the Division Bench by M/s. Delhi Automobiles Ltd. (being Co. Appeal No. 16/96). Pursuant to the liberty given by the Division Bench in that appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent in respect of its property at Sikandara Road. When this Court was moved by the petitioner in CP No. 161/97 for sale of property No. 1, Sikandara Road, New Delhi and by the Official Liquidator for rendering police assistance to it for taking over the physical possession of the said property, Mr. Girdhar Govind, the learned counsel who had been earlier representing GAL as well as M/s. Delhi Automobiles Ltd. once again entered the scene and reiterated that Mr. G. Sagar Suri had no authority to bind M/s. Delhi Automobiles Ltd., by suffering an order of deemed attachment of its property at Sikandara Road. 6. As far as the opposition to the sale of property No. 1, Sikandara Road, New Delhi on behalf of M/s. Delhi Automobiles Ltd., is concerned that chapter, in my view, stood closed once for all after the dismissal of its application which had been filed for recalling of the order dated 2-2-1998 whereby this Court had ordered that in case of non-payment of the dues of the petitioning creditors within a period of 3 months the said property shall be deemed to have been attached and become liable to be sold under the supervision of the Court as well as the disposal of the appeal fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said property he was holding proper power of attorneys in his favour by the erstwhile owners which had been executed in his favour after some settlement had been arrived at between M/s. Delhi Automobiles Ltd., and the erstwhile owners in a suit for specific performance which the said Company had filed against them in respect of the said property and compromise decrees were passed in the year 1992 on different dates and it was on the basis of those power of attorneys that Mr. G. Sagar Suri had executed the sale deed in favour of M/s. Delhi Automobiles Ltd., in January, 2003. Therefore, from this document also placed on record by M/s. Delhi Automobiles Ltd., it is clear that Mr. G. Sagar Suri was fully competent to make a statement in Court in respect of the said property at Sikandara Road which he had actually made on 2-2-1998. I am, however, of the view that Mr. G. Sagar Suri should have disclosed the fact to the Court on 2-2-1998 that no sale deed in respect of the said property in favour of M/s. Delhi Automobiles Ltd., was in existence at that time and that he was having power of attorneys in his favour on behalf of the erstwhile owners under which he was competent to exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
