9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid as advance. The agreed price was Rs.11,250 per acre. It is further provided in the MOU that Mr.T.V.Pattan agreed to hand over all the original documents relating to the respective lands at the time of registration of the GPAs. The contention of learned Administrator that about 58 acres was conveyed to the customers of the Company through the GPA holder, Sankaran, is liable to be accepted. When the survey numbers specified therein are compared with the survey numbers mentioned in the sale deeds executed by the GPA holder in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the applicants, it is also evident that the GPA holder had fraudulently sold/re- sold 86.86 acres of land, including the 58 acres sold earlier through such GPA holder to the Company's customers under registered sale deeds. What is the effect of the injunction order on the sale deeds executed by the GPA holder subsequent thereto? - HELD THAT:- By taking into account the MOU, the GPAs, receipts and letters of undertaking, there is sufficient basis to conclude that the Disputed Land is an asset of the Company. Considering the fact that the MOU, GPAs and receipts were executed in 1995, whereas the sale deeds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.1062 of 2013 dated 16.05.2013, which is in favour of the first applicant; and a fourth sale deed bearing Document No.171 of 2014 dated 29.01.2014, which was executed by other land owners in favour of the first applicant's son. Learned senior counsel, Mr.Arvindh Pandian, made submissions by relying on the above documents. He further submitted that some parent documents through which IIEL acquired title are on record as Document Nos.1218, 1641, 1738, 1740 and 1741 of 2013. He also relied upon the pattas, adangal, tax receipts, and income tax documents to contend that the company in provisional liquidation (the Company) does not have any right over the Disputed Land. Upon being impleaded subsequently, applicants 2-7 did not make additional submissions but adopted the submissions of the first applicant. 3. In response to these submissions, learned Administrator filed a common counter on behalf of the Official Liquidator (the OL). In the said counter, it was asserted that the Company acquired about 119.105 acres in Nangaimozhi village by way of 46 registered general powers of attorney (GPA) and two sale deeds in favour of an employee of the Company. Pursuant thereto, the Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01.06.2003 to 25.12.2021. If encumbrance certificates from 1995 onwards are examined, he contended that entries revealing purchase by 107 customers under registered sale deeds executed by the Company through the GPA holder would be contained therein. According to him, the applicants, therefore, had the means to ascertain the existence of prior conveyances from public records by exercising reasonable due diligence before purchasing the lands in 2013. Hence, the sale deeds are null and void. 7. Learned counsel also submitted that an order of interim injunction restraining alienation or conveyance of the lands was operating against the GPA holders in C.A.No.740 of 2003. Despite the operation of such order, it was stated that the GPA holder had committed fraud by selling or re-selling 86.86 acres of land, including the 58 acres sold earlier through such GPA holder to the Company's customers, under registered sale deeds executed in 2005-2006. Further, it was stated that the OL took possession of the Nangaimozhi properties on 22.04.2011 and the sale transactions in favour of the applicants, which allegedly took place in 2013, are void against the Company and the OL. 8. By way ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being in possession of parent documents. The MOU was executed by the Company and a local intermediary, namely, Mr.T.V.Pattan. The terms and conditions disclose that Mr.T.V.Pattan was responsible for procuring 200 acres of land and 20% of the total amount was agreed to be paid as advance. The agreed price was Rs.11,250 per acre. It is further provided in the MOU that Mr.T.V.Pattan agreed to hand over all the original documents relating to the respective lands at the time of registration of the GPAs. 12. The receipts contained in the additional typed set of learned Administrator at page numbers 7 to 12 are of significance. There is a receipt dated 02.12.1995 evidencing payment of Rs.8,42,270/- to the local intermediary/party to the MOU, T.V.Pattan, towards the land cost of 83.05 acres in the Max-Nangaimozhi project. The affidavit annexed thereto provides the GPA document numbers and the same is extracted below: We hereby affirm that the Payment which I received through Voucher No.C-4414 has been already distributed to all the Original Owners who gained General Power of Attorney (G.P.A. Deed No.197/95, 175/95, 196/95, 167/95, 172/95, 189/95, 176/95, 195/95, 174/95, 39/95, 38/9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claimant/purchaser (page 274 of the typed set). In the list of customers, his name is at serial number 2 and is found at page 243 of the typed set. The entry relating to Sale Deed Document No.256/96 shows the name of Gurdasmal Arora as the claimant/purchaser (page 275 of the typed set). In the list of customers, his name is at serial number 3 and is found at page 243 of the typed set. The encumbrance certificate also discloses that the sale deeds in favour of the customers of the Company, were executed by the agent, Sankaran. Upon carrying out this exercise, I find that the contention of learned Administrator that about 58 acres was conveyed to the customers of the Company through the GPA holder, Sankaran, is liable to be accepted. When the survey numbers specified therein are compared with the survey numbers mentioned in the sale deeds executed by the GPA holder in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the applicants, it is also evident that the GPA holder had fraudulently sold/re- sold 86.86 acres of land, including the 58 acres sold earlier through such GPA holder to the Company's customers under registered sale deeds. 14. The applicants, however, claim title unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith much larger extents, reveal that the lands were acquired under various sale deeds executed by D.Sankaran, the GPA holder, in favour of James Moses Paul and Glory Nesa Bai, in Udankudi Sub-Registrar Office as Document Nos. 1024/2005, 1194/2005, 949/2005, 1026/2005, 994/2005, 996/2005, 995/2005, 997/2005, 1091/2005, 1107/2005, 951/2005, 950/2005, 1195/2005, 1027/2005, 1025/2005, 1028/2005 in the year 2005. In the rejoinder, the first applicant admits categorically that these sale deeds were executed by the GPA holder, D.Sankaran, in favour of Mr. James Moses Paul, Mrs. Glory Nesa Bai and others. Paragraph 5 of the rejoinder of the first applicant, which contains this admission, is set out below: 5. I respectfully state that as admitted by the 2nd respondent herein the Maxworth Orchards (India) Ltd. appointed and authorized one Mr.Sankaran who was an employee of the Maxworth Orchards (India) Ltd to deal with the Properties. It is also on record that subsequent to the said authorization Mr.Sankaran had dealt with the Properties and he had executed Sale Deeds and necessary documents to transfer the properties in favour of the purchasers. Consequent on such authorization the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CPC). The interim order, in this case, was originally passed ex parte against several agents, including D.Sankaran. Despite the lapse of considerable time, these persons did not apply to discharge the interim injunction or even contest the matter and the interim order was extended until further orders. These applicants cannot step into the shoes of the GPA holder, Sankaran, and assert that he was unaware of the order or otherwise espouse his cause. Especially when viewed in the context of compelling evidence that the GPA holder fraudulently resold lands previously sold to customers of the Company, these contentions are bereft of merit and liable to be rejected. Clifford George dealt with the effect of Section 237 of the Contract Act but did not deal with an agent under a contract of agency, who acts in contravention of an order of court. Therefore, none of these judgments advance the cause of the applicants. 19. With regard to the effect of a conveyance in the teeth of an order of court, it is instructive to refer to Jehal Tanti and Ors. v. Nageshwar Singh (dead), 2013 SCC OnLine SC 374, where, in relevant part, it was held as under: We may also notice Section 23 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or alteration in the status of its members, made after the commencement of the winding up, shall, unless the Court otherwise orders, be void. C.P.No.57 of 1998 was presented by a creditor of the Company on or about 24.02.1998. An Administrator was appointed on 12.02.2001 and was vested with all powers of the Official Liquidator by order dated 06.02.2006. By order dated 17.09.2010, the Official Liquidator was appointed as Provisional Liquidator. Consequently, by virtue of the legal fiction incorporated in Section 441(2) of CA 1956, the winding up was deemed to commence on or about 24.02.1998. Once a provisional liquidator is appointed, the wide powers of this Court, inter alia, under Section 446(2) of CA 1956 were recognised by the Supreme Court in Sudarsan Chits (I) Ltd. v. O. Sukumaran Pillai (1984) 4 SCC 657. As a corollary, Section 536(2) of CA 1956 became applicable and all dispositions of property, including actionable claims, of the Company and transfers of shares or alteration in the status of members in the Company, if effected after 24.02.1998, would be void unless validated by the Court. 22. In this case, by taking into account the MOU, the GPAs, receipts and le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
