9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 1959 and has been filed in the form of Judges Summons in support of which no affidavit has been filed, but report of the Official Liquidator has only been filed. 3 In the report submitted by the Official Liquidator, it is reported that M/s.Akber Leathers Ltd. Was ordered to be wound up on 20.9.2006 by this Court in C.P.No.14 of 1997. The Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as Liquidator with a direction to take charge of all the assets and effects of the company in liquidation. 4 In pursuance to the order passed by this Court, the Official Liquidator deputed his officials to take possession of the assets of the company on 19.12.2006 after issuing necessary notice to all the ex-directors, secured creditors and petitioning creditors. 5 It is reported that one representative of the company ShriM.K.Mustiaque Ahmed came to the work spot and handed over the keys of the premises but did not furnish any information about the affairs of the company including the details of the assets and whereabouts of the company's records. 6 It was reported by the officials deputed by the Official Liquidator that the factory premises has been sealed and winding up no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n as on 31.12.20013 ₹ 1.17 lakhs 13 It is also reported that as per the statement of affairs filed by the ex-directors, the estimated value of the immovable property was ₹ 2,92,50,000/- (Rupees two crore ninety two lakhs and fifty thousand only), but it was sold by the District Collector, for a sum of ₹ 42,55,000/- (Rupees forty two lakhs fifty five thousand only). It is not known as to why the assets were not valued by approved Valuer. 14 It is thus reported that the sale conducted by the District Collector was void against the Liquidator, in terms of section 536(1) (2) of the Companies Act, 1956, as the auction sale of immovable property was conducted after presentation of winding up petition on 8.1.1997. 15 It is also reported that as per section 441(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, the winding up of a company by the Court be deemed to commence from the date of presentation of petition for winding up. 16 Section 536(2) of Companies Act, 1956 reads as under: In the case of a winding up by or subject to the supervision of the Court, any disposition of the property (including auctionable claim) of the company, and any transfer of shares in the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 1997 was filed by B.I.F.R. in the year 1997 when the dispute of Workmen against the company was pending. The award in favour of workmen was passed in the year 1999. 22 In order to enforce the award passed by the learned Labour Court, G.O.Ms.No.60, dated 31.01.2000 was issued by the Labour and Employment department, directing the District Collector, Vellore district to recover a sum of ₹ 55,45,060.46 (Rupees fifty five lakhs forty five thousand and sixty and paise forty six only) from M/s.Akbar Leathers. In compliance with the direction issued by the Government under section 33(c) (1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, (hereinafter referred to as I.D. Act), the District Collector, Vellore District, vide order, dated 15.5.2000, directed the Tahsildar, Vaniyambadi to recover the amount. 23 The demand notice was fixed on 3.8.2000 and auction sale notice fixing the date of auction on 24.1.2001 was issued on 20.11.2000. On 7.1.2002, auction sale notice fixing the date of auction on 18.2.2002 was published in Gazette. 24 This was challenged by M/s.Akbar Leather Ltd. by filing W.P.No.4733 of 2002 on 15.2.2002 wherein interim stay was granted. On 25.4.2002, interim order was mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmore, the sale was conducted by the District Collector in exercise of statutory provisions under the Revenue Recovery Act of 1956 on 9.1.2003. Whereas, the Company was ordered to be wound up on 29.3.2006, i.e. after three years and eight months of the date when the respondent No.3 was declared as successful bidder. 38 It was contended that M/s.Akbar Leather Ltd. Which is now represented by the Official Liquidator, had challenged the proceedings by the District Collector, Vellore district by filing writ petition before this Court and it was unsuccessful, therefore, the bonafide of the Collector in auctioning the property cannot be doubted. 39 The learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that auction sale was challenged in W.P.No.4733 of 2003 in which though interim order was granted, but on failure to comply with the conditional order, that the stay was vacated. Second attempt was again made by M/s.Akbar Leather Ltd. to challenge the auction by filing W.P.No.10026 of 2006 where it failed again. 40 The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 contended that the amount received through sale was disbursed to the workmen, as well as secured creditors, i.e. Tamil Nadu Indus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mine in which sense the Legislature intended to use it. An act or contract neither wrong in itself nor against public policy, which has been declared void by statute for the protection or benefit of a certain party, or class of parties, is voidable only. 15. For discerning the legislative idea in employing the word void in the context set out in Section 536(2) of the Companies Act the second aspect to be noticed is that the provision itself shows that the word void is not employed peremptorily since court has power to order otherwise. The words unless the court otherwise orders are capable of diluting the rigor of the word void and to choose the alternative meaning attached to that word. 16. In Chittoor District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. v. Vegetols Ltd. and Ors. (1987 (Suppl.) SCC 167) a two Judge Bench of this Court considered a plea for validation of payments made by a company after presentation of a petition for winding up. One set of payments were made before the passing of the winding up order and the other set of payments were made thereafter. This Court declined to validate such payments on the ground that there is no evidence to show that those payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
