9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the property and as stated hereinbefore, Cogent Ventures (India) Ltd. could not convey title to the property as it did not have any. It is also material to note that although the appellant claims to derive its interest in the property from documents executed in the year 2006, he had taken no steps for execution of the conveyance in his favour. The appellant claims that he was unaware of the orders passed by this Court. The learned Company Court has rightly disbelieved the same. The Official Liquidator has, on repeated occasions, taken steps for protection of the subject land and properties owned by the JVG companies. It is difficult for this Court to accept that the appellant would not have been aware of the same. According to the Official Liquidator, it had taken possession of the subject land, which included the property, on 13.10.2020. The impugned order, rejecting the applications filed by the appellant, cannot be faulted - Appeal dismissed. - CO.APP. 2/2023 and CM Nos. 4125/2023 & 4126/2023,CO.APP. 3/2023 and CM Nos. 4127/2023 & 4128/2023 and CO.APP. 4/2023 and CM Nos. 4129/2023 & 4130/2023 - - - Dated:- 27-1-2023 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU AND HON ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t fell in error in proceeding on the basis that the appellants had no title or interest in the property. He contended that the appellant was in possession of the said property and had validly acquired the title to the same from Cogent Ventures (India) Ltd. 6. He also submits that the appellant had paid full consideration for the property through banking channels and therefore, there could not be any doubt that the appellant is a bona fide purchaser of the property for valuable consideration. He submits that the learned Company Court had erred in not considering the Official Liquidator s letter dated 10.10.2003 to the District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District confirming that the Official Liquidator had taken over possession of only 225 plots out of 395 plots at site. He also contends that the learned Company Court had overlooked the Official Liquidator s letter dated 11.12.2007 to the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District confirming all sale deeds, settlement deeds, Agreement of Sale, GPAs and SPAs, executed by the JVG companies prior to 07.12.1997, were valid. He submitted that the One-Man Committee, constituted by the learned Company Court, in its report dated 03.06.2019, found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e their liability to pay the said amount owing to an acute cash crunch. 11. In the circumstances, the said parties (the JVG companies, Bhupendra Capital Finance Ltd. and other affiliates) had entered into a Deed of Settlement dated 10.09.1996, whereby the JVG companies (referred to as the owner) had agreed that Bhupendra Capital Finance Ltd. and other contractors (referred to as the Contractors ) would be entitled to an area of 70,000 square yards at an agreed value of ₹450 per square yard, in consideration of the Contractors completing the development activities. 12. The appellant claims that thereafter, on 06.05.1997, the JVG companies entered into a Deed of Agreement of Sale, whereby the JVG companies agreed to sell property (land admeasuring 3 acres 27 Guntas in survey no.189 part situated at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad) to Bhupendra Capital Finance Ltd. for a consideration of ₹11,20,000/- (Eleven Lakhs Twenty Thousand), which was otherwise due and payable by the JVG companies to Bhupendra Capital Finance Ltd. 13. The appellant claims that he purchased all rights in respect of the property from Cogent V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oted that the documents relied upon did not mention any amount spent by Cogent Ventures (India) Ltd. on the project work. Further, no detail was mentioned regarding the actual physical work executed. The documents also did not disclose the amount paid to various companies for execution of the works and the mode of making such payment. 20. Indisputably, title in the property did not vest with Cogent Ventures (India) Ltd. as there was no registered document conveying the said title of any part of the subject land in its favour. 21. Admittedly, Cogent Ventures (India) Ltd. had not challenged the One-Man Committee report rejecting its claim. The appellant claims to derive its interest in the property from Cogent Ventures (India) Ltd. and since the claims of Cogent Ventures (India) Ltd. have been rejected, the appellant cannot claim a better right. 22. Secondly, there is no registered document conveying the property in favour of the appellant. As noted above, the appellant claims right on the basis of the Agreement of Sale-cum-Power of Attorney. The said document does not convey the title of the property to the appellant. In any event, since the title of the property was not co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
