9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s directed to comply with the direction contained in the order dated 08.10.2013, forthwith. 24. The order dated 11.09.2014 (reproduced in paragraph (15) hereinabove), rendered by this Court is modified accordingly. The Official Liquidator is directed to file a report in compliance with the present order, on or before the next date of hearing. - CO.PET. 161/1997, CO.APPL.1231/2000, 311/2012, 616/2012, 617/2012, 618/2012, 619/2012, 622/2012, 1222/2014, 1717/2015, 2465/2015, 2466/2015, 534/2016 & 535/2016 - - - Dated:- 20-3-2017 - MR SIDDHARTH MRIDUL J. Petitioner Through: Ms. Kajal Chandra, Advocate with Ms. Swati Sinha and Ms. Prerna Chopra, Advocates for the petitioners Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajneesh Sharma, Mr. Akshay Ringe, Ms. Kalyani Lal and Mr. Sangram Singh, Advocates Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tarun Singh, Advocate for M/s Goyal M.G. Gases (P) Ltd. and M/s Poysha Oxygen (P) Ltd. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. D.K. Rustagi and Mr. Mayank Rustagi, Advocates for DAL Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj, Advocate for MSIL in CO.APPL.1231/2000 Mr. Alok Bachawat and Ms. TAvishi Chandra, Advocates for Mr. Ramesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ws: 02/02/1998 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 are being made to sell the property and in case the property is sold, the money will first be utilized for meeting the amount due to the creditors who have filed petitions in this Court. He further states that the Chairman of M/s Delhi Automobiles Limited and Mr. Mukhinder Singh, the Director of M/s Ganga Automobiles Limited are present in Court and their statements may be recorded. Let their statements be recorded . February 2, 1998. Sd/Anil Dev Singh, J. The statement of Mr. G. Sagar Sun, Chairman, M/s Delhi Automobiles Limited and Mr. Mukhinder Singh, Directors of M/s Ganga Automobiles Limited, have been recorded. The undertakings given by them are accepted. In case the property No.1, Sikandra Road, New Delhi is not sold within a period of three and-half months and the amounts which are due to the creditors who are before this Court are not paid off or any other fav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amendment) came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Subsequently, on 18.03.2010, an application being CO.APPL.No.1242/2009 for revival of these two applications was also dismissed for non-prosecution. h) Eventually, this Court, by way of its order dated 04.04.2011, held that the subject property stood attached and was liable to be sold in view of the circumstance that Mr. G.S. Suri, Chairman of DAL, was holding a valid Power of Attorney from the previous owners of the subject property and, was therefore competent to make the statement, as recorded in the order of this Court dated 02.02.1998 (relevant portion of which has been extracted in sub-paragraph (b) hereinabove). i) It is observed that DAL claims to have entered into an Agreement to Sell with TDI Infratech (hereinafter referred to as Taneja ), qua the subject property, on 24.12.2002, for a consideration of ₹ 25 crores. Further, it has been claimed by DAL that out of the total consideration for the said Agreement to Sell dated 24.12.2002, a sum of ₹ 5 crores has been paid to DAL. Further, it has been stated by DAL that, a sum of ₹ 2 crores paid towards the Lease Deed dated 14.01.2013, entered int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect property (as mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (6) hereinabove). 9. The Division Bench by way of its judgment and order dated 22.08.2013, after considering the series of orders dated 02.02.1998, 03.02.1998, 20.02.1998, 22.05.1998, and 18.08.1998, found that the following was apparent: (a) Shri G.S. Suri has unequivocally stated that DAL would commit the suit property, i.e. No.1 Sikandra Road and sell it; the proceeds were to be used to liquidate GAL s outstanding liabilities; (b) On 03.02.1998, Shri G.S. Suri sought to resile from the undertaking, stating that he did not have the authorization to commit the suit property in the manner that he did previously. However, the Court did not relieve him of the undertaking. (c) Subsequently, a review petition for recall of the order dated 02.02.1998 was filed. However, the said order was never varied. (d) The orders dated 20.02.1998 and 22.05.1998 would reveal that GAL sought to buy time to discharge its liabilities, and consequently, the previous orders were kept in abeyance with the condition that in the event the payment schedule indicated to the Court were not adhered to, it would face a deemed windi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivision Bench by orders dated 22nd August, 2013. The present application has been filed to point out that since the appeals have been dismissed, the official liquidator should be directed to take possession of the property. This contention is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the Delhi Automobile Ltd. It is contended that there is still time for Delhi Automobile Ltd. to challenge the orders of the Division Bench in further appeals and till then nothing should be done which may adversely affect Delhi Automobile Ltd. Now that the appeals have been dismissed by the Division Bench and there is no further appeal pending as on date nor is there any stay order, there is no impediment in issuing a direction to the official liquidator to take possession of the property and dispose of the same. However, in the meantime the occupants of the property have to be given notice of these developments. It is stated that one Mr. Narender Suri is in occupation of the property except two rooms of the first floor which are in possession of the official liquidator. After giving due notice to the occupants of the orders passed by the Division Bench it will be open to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ming the direction of sale of the said property and the Special Leave Petition is listed in the end of October for final disposal. Issue notice to Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Officer, RTO, New Delhi, returnable on 21st January, 2015. Learned senior counsel for the Corporation Bank submits that he has not received a copy of the report. Let a copy of the report be furnished to the counsel for the Corporation Bank. Learned counsel appearing for Mr. Charanjit, Ex Director submits that even he has not received the copy of the report. Let a copy of the report be also supplied to the counsel for Ex Director Mr. Charanjit Singh. Learned senior counsel appearing for Delhi Automobiles Limited further submits that some amount was deposited by Delhi Automobiles Limited with the Registry of this Court. The Registry is directed to furnish a report indicating the amount deposited by Delhi Automobiles Limited along with the interest accrued thereon before the next date of hearing. It is claimed by M/s Universal Buildcon Limited that they are in possession of a portion of a property. The Official Liquidator submits that the said portion apart from some other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Admitted, admission letter issued 9. M/s Poyasha Oxigen Ltd. 1,44,28,492/- Admitted, admission letter issued 10. M/s Pashupati Fincap 85,58,832/- 60,00,000/- (Admitted in term of court order dated 08.01.2014 Admitted subject to further verification of proof of debt and recovery of rent received by the claimant from the tenant. Admission letter issued. 11. Rajeev Goel Architect Pvt. Ltd. 48,64,000/- 14,64,728/- Subject to further verification of proof of debt. Admission letter issued. CLAIMS OF WORKMEN:- S.No. NAME OF CLAIMANTS AMOUNT CLAIMED AMOUNT ADMITTED REMARKS 1. Sh. Des Raj 30,918/- 25,082/- Admission letter issued 2. Mohd. Irshani 1400/- 1400/- Admis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43,221/- Admission letter issued 18. Sh. Dinesh Chandra 89,8592/- 31,907/- Admission letter issued 19. Sh. Prem Ram 54,172/- 50,032/- Admission 20. Sh. Bhagwan 1,63,872/- 15,972/- Admission letter issued That subsequently this office of Official Liquidator received following more claims i.e. from employee S.No. NAME OF CLAIMANTS AMOUNT CLAIMED REMARKS 1. Sh. Mangat Ram (Employee) (Claim submitted on 09.03.2004) 54,277.33 Claimant has been asked to provide the document to proof his debts. 2. Mr. Mahavir Singh (Employee) (Claim submitted on 09.03.2004 received from JVG Section 07.01.2013) 37,012/- Claimant has been asked to provide the document to proof his debts. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wever the settlement amount is lying deposited with the Official Liquidator in terms of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 27.02.2012. Copies of letter dated 12.11.2013, 17.01.2014 and the affidavit of M/s Rocksmelt are enclosed herewith and marked as annexure 'C' (Colly). xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 16. That The total liability of the company as per the claims admitted by the Official liquidator toward the unsecured creditors and the workmen comes to ₹ 6,42,63,759.15. It may be pointed out that adjudication of the claim by the Official Liquidator are further subject to appeal in this court as provided under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules 1959. It may also be stated that amount admitted do not include any component of interest. However, to balance of equities for all parties, this court may consider grant of some interest. However, Rule 156 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 provides the payment of interest to the maximum of 4% on any debt or certain sum, payable at a certain time or otherwise where on interest is not reserved or agreed for, and which is overdue at the date of the wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment, as aforementioned. 21. Mr. Harish Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Goyal M.G. Gazes (P) Ltd. and M/s Poysha Oxygen (P) Ltd., two of the unsecured creditors, as well as, Ms. Kajal Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would state that their claims have been wrongly adjudicated by the Official Liquidator, without considering the interest component, that has accrued on the principal sums owed to them, and directly in opposition to the Award dated 31.07.2007 rendered by Mr. P.K. Bahri, the Arbitrator, in the case of M/s. Goyal M.G. Gazes (P) Ltd. and M/s Poysha Oxygen (P) Ltd. 22. In view of the foregoing, there are two inescapable conclusions that are axiomatic: (a) That DAL had offered attachment of the subject property to the Official Liquidator to discharge and pay all the existing and future liabilities, including all the dues owed to various secured and unsecured creditors of GAL. (b) Despite repeated opportunities both, DAL and GAL have failed, avoided and neglected to disburse and discharge the said outstanding liability. 23. Therefore, in view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, it is consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
