9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en transferred to the Company. According to the terms and conditions on which the plot was to be sold to the Company, the amount which had been paid by the Company had already been forfeited and the Company had no right of whatsoever type in the plot in question - High Court was not justified in giving any right in respect of the plot in question to the official liquidator or the Company. It is pertinent to note that the ownership of the plot in question had not been transferred to the Company and a permissive possession given by the appellant to the Company for some limited purpose would not create any interest or right in favour of the Company. The plot would remain the property of the appellant-Corporation as the conditions on which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount had to be paid to the appellant- Corporation within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the allotment order. It is an admitted fact that within the period prescribed, the entire price of the plot had not been paid by the said allottee to the appellant-Corporation and in the circumstances, as per clause 8 incorporated in the said letter, which reads as under, the amount paid by the afore-named company had been forfeited. 8. If payment as stipulated in condition (3) above is not made within 60 days of receipt of this allotment letter, this allotment letter shall stand cancelled and the EMD paid shall remain forfeited. 4. After the Company had failed to make payment and the allotment was cancelled, a request was made by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant praying for taking possession of the plot in question as the plot was in unauthorized possession of the Company. In the said proceedings, the official liquidator admitted the fact that the plot in question had not been transferred in the name of the Company. Ultimately, by an order dated 28th June, 2007 the Company application filed by the appellant had been dismissed by the High Court with a direction to the official liquidator to take appropriate steps to dispose of the plot in question. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforestated order passed in the Company application, the appellant had filed an appeal being O.S.A.No.20/2008 before the High Court contending that the plot in question had not been transferred to the Company and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uidator was rightly permitted to dispose of the plot as the plot virtually belonged to the Company. 11. The learned counsel had tried to substantiate the reasons given by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench while deciding O.S.A.No.18 of 2008 in favour of the official liquidator and had submitted that the appeal should be dismissed. 12. We had heard the learned counsel and had also perused the relevant record which clearly shows that the ownership right in respect of the plot in question has not been transferred to the Company. It is an admitted fact that the Company, which is now in liquidation, had not paid the entire amount of the consideration and therefore, the ownership right in respect of the plot had not bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
