9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med out of survey No. 81/1, 81/2A, 81/2B, 81/4A, 82/2 part situated at Doddakallasandra Village Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The said land had been allotted in favour of the applicant by the KIADB. Subsequently the applicant-company had experienced financial difficulties and, as such, winding up petition was filed before this court in C.O.R. No. 8/1980. This Court had ordered winding up by its order dated 26.7.1985. Subsequently a scheme of arrangement was propounded as at Annexure-D to the application. The scheme had been approved by this Court by an order dated 16.09-.2009 (Annexure-6). One of the terms in the scheme being that the said land allotted by the KIADB be transferred to the applicant-company the applicant is before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land allotted to the company." 6. A perusal of the said clause would clearly indicate that on the scheme becoming effective, the applicant-company would have to pay the dues to the KIADB and the KIADB shall execute the sale deed in favour of the company. The order dated 16.09.2009 (Annexure-C), passed by this Court in Company Petition No. 109/2007 i.e. the petition wherein the scheme of arrangement was considered for approval does not in anyway alter the said clause which is contained in the said scheme. The scheme, as proposed has been approved by this Court, wherein the nature of payments to be made by the applicant-company to the creditors is also clearly indicated. Therefore the scheme being Composite with regard to the payments to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res to be implemented without putting any spokes, the same need not be adverted to in detail except to notice the legal position which has been enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme court as pointed out by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant by citing the decisions in the case of J.K. (Bombay) (P.) Ltd. v. New Kaiser-I-Hind Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. AIR 1970 SC 1041 and in the case of Ashok Paper Mills Kamgar Union v. Union of India [1997] 3 Comp. LJ 55 (SC) and also the decision of the Gujarath High Court in the case of Divya Vasundhara Financiers Ltd. v. K.N. Samant [1990] 69 Comp. Cas. 646. 9. Apart from the above, the contention on behalf of the respondent with regard to non-execution of the lease-cum-sale agreement also requires ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation where the KIADB has not produced any material to indicate that the allotment of lease had been cancelled for any violation exercising the clause which is indicated in Annexure - A. I am of the opinion that the KIADB in the present facts, when it was a party to the earlier proceedings where the approval of the scheme was considered, cannot object to the execution of the sale deed, which is accepted by this Court by approval of the scheme. Therefore, if the clause in the scheme extracted above is perused, at this juncture, all that is necessary for the applicant to comply, is to pay the amount, which is claimed as due by the KIADB. 11. In that regard, while taking up the application for consideration, this Court had permitted the couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
