9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... derabad, Andhra Pradesh. Applicant made payments of Rs. 31,100 with JVG Finance and Rs. 3,00,910 with JVG Projects before 5-6-1998, the date of appointment of the Provisional Liquidator. 4. The One Man Committee has found that the claimant has deposited only a sum of Rs. 61,290 towards the sale consideration and other charges whereas the applicant claimed that it had additionally deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,580 in cash. The Committee has also found that the applicant had failed to place on record any receipt of the aforesaid cash payment. 5. However, it is an admitted position that in the present case the sale deed had been executed by an alleged authorised representative of JVG Finance Limited after 5-6-1998 i.e., after the date of appointment of the Provisional Liquidator. 6. The One Man Committee appointed by this Court rejected the applicant's claim. The relevant portion of the order reads as under :- "** ** ** That in the present case on the petition filed by the RBI for winding up of the company namely M/s. JVG Finance Ltd. the Hon'ble Court appointed a Provisional Liquidator vide order dated 5-6-1998. All the properties and effects of the company vested in the custody ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uted in her favour. Moreover, the agreement does not itself create any interest or charge on the property. The vendor accepted the part sale consideration and executed the sale deed after 5-6-1998 without the leave of the Hon'ble Court. Hence, the sale is void under section 537(1)(b) of the Companies Act. That from the facts stated above it is quite clear that after 5-6-1998 Col. M.J. Ganapathy had no authority to receive any amount towards sale consideration and execute a sale deed in respect of plot No. F-201 measuring 234 Sq. yds. in favour of Smt. Chamundeshwari Krupeswara without the leave of the Hon'ble Court. Hence the sale deed executed on 4-7-1998 by Col. M.J. Ganapathy in favour of Smt. Chamundeshwari Krupeswara in invalid. The claim of Smt. Chamundeshwari Krupeswara is disposed of with the following observations. (a)That the claimant shall not be entitled to allotment of plot No. F-201 measuring 234 Sq. yds. (b)That the claimant shall be entitled to the refund of Rs. 61,290 with interest as may be fixed by the court. OR The claimant shall be entitled to the proportionate amount as may be found payable. The claim of Smt. Chamundeshwari Krupeswara is, accordingly, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has been held as under :- "16. .....Therefore the tenancy created in favour of the Tatas was in breach of the order of the Court and consequently the Tatas cannot claim any protection under the provisions of the Act and they are liable to be evicted. ......In any event as observed above, the new tenancy created in their favour contrary to the orders of the Court does not create a right and is liable to be cancelled....." (ii)In Satyabrata Biswas v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku [1994] 2 SCC 266, it has been held as under :- "29. ...... Hence, the grant of sub-lease is contrary to the order of status quo. Any act done on the teeth of the order of status quo is clearly illegal. All actions including the grant of sub-lease are clearly illegal.... ** ** ** 31. The parties are relegated to the position as on 15-9-1988. Somani Builders are hereby directed to deliver vacant possession to the Special Officer within one month from today...." (iii)In Surjit Singh v. Harbans Singh [1995] 6 SCC 50, it has been held as under :- "4. ....In defiance of the restraint order, the alienation/assignment was made. If we were to let it go as such, it would defeat the ends of justice and the prevalent pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough that the transferor is a party and the order was in force. These two conditions being satisfied, the transfer must not be upheld. If this course is not adopted then the tendency to flout orders of Courts which is increasing day by day can never be curbed......" (vii)In Punjab National Bank v. Delite Properties (P.) Ltd., AIR 2004 Cal. 114, it has been held as under :- "17. It is settled position of the law that if any person or persons in breach of the order of Court comes in possession in a suit property they do not acquire any right or authority and they are to be dealt with amongst other by passing the order of eviction and further with an appropriate order of punishment...." (viii)In Praveen Garg v. Oriental Bank of Commerce [2006] 128 DLT 811, it has been held as under :- "6. The question that arises for my consideration is whether the Recovery Officer in view of a stay order by the competent court could have proceeded with such an auction and whether such an auction which then creates a title, can be set aside? From the law enunciated by the Supreme Court it is clear that sale of property is nonest. The Recovery Officer had no right to subject the property to sale. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
