9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ajesh Kumar, Shailendra Singh, V.K. Sharma, P. Nagesh and Anand M. Mishra for the Applicant. JUDGMENT 1. Keeping in view the averments in the application, delay in filing Co. Appl. 1633/2011 is condoned. Accordingly, application stands disposed of. Co. Appl. 1633/2011 2. Present application has been filed under section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('Act') after the applicant received 132nd Report of Mr. J.P. Aggarwal, the One Man Committee, appointed by this Court, to verify the claimant's rights in relation to plots situated at JVG Hills Layout, Kondapur Village, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The facts of the present case are that the applicant in pursuance to an advertisement issued by the JVG Group in the year 1995 booked and was allotted a plot bearing No. F-201, JVG Hills Layout Kondapur Village, Hyderabad, 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 applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy come to an end. Col. Ganapathy went on committing frauds when he went on selling the plots in Hyderabad after 1998. He had no authority to sell or alienate any of the properties of JVG. All his averments that he was not aware of the order till 2002 is false. Col. Ganapathy appeared before the committee on 11-12-2007 and admitted that he came to know of liquidation in September, 1998 yet he continued to sell the plots in utter violation of the provisions of the Companies Act. In view of these circumstances his averment that he came to know about liquidation only in September 1998 cannot be considered trustworthy. That so far as the agreement to sell is concerned, it is stated that it was entered into between the parties before the commencement of winding up of the company, but till 5-6-1998 neither the entire the sale consideration was paid by the vendee nor sale deed was executed 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid order dated 5-6-1998 appointing the Provisional Liquidator as well as the fact that certain cash payments are alleged to have been made by the applicant, which are not reflected in the balance sheet of the company, it is the considered opinion of this Court that the impugned sale deed has been executed only to defeat the rights of the creditors of the company in liquidation. It is a settled law that this Court will not allow the assets of a company in liquidation to be disposed of at the pleasure of the company and thus cause the fundamental principle of equality amongst the creditors to be violated. 8. In fact, the Apex Court and the different High Courts have consistently taken the view that execution of any sale deed in disobedience of an interim order of the Court is a nullity. Some of the relevant judgments are reproduced hereinbelow : ( i )In Krishna Kumar Khemka v. Grindlays Bank P.L.C. [1990] 3 SCC 669, it 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 evic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the trial Court on 18-8-1992 .." ( v )In Ashwani Kumar v. Lachi Ram AIR 2003 HP 28, it has been held as under : "17. ..If after the grant of temporary injunction by the Court, a party brings about any change in the subject-matter of the suit in disregard of the orders of the Courts, it is within the power of the Court to restore the things to the position where they stood immediately before the grant of the ad-interim injunction." ( vi )In Keshrimal Jivji Shah v. Bank of Maharashtra [2004] 122 Comp. Cas. 831 (Bom.), it has been held as under : "26. It is time that we recognize the principle that transfer of immovable property in violation of an order of injunction or prohibition issued by Court of law, confers no right, title or interest in the transferee, as it is no transfer at all. The transferee cannot be allowed to reap advantage or benefit from such transfer merely because he is not party to the proceedings in which order of injunction or other prohibitory direction or restraint came to be issued. It is enough 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
