9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stant application before this Court on 01.05.2017 and the matter has lingered on for want of submission of better particulars on the part of IFCI. Even in Annexure C , filed with the affidavit dated 04.02.2022, the receipt of Rs. 57.50 Lacs from Mr. Sachin Jain i.e. the applicant/third party objector is not accounted for. There is no covering letter accompanied with the remittances that have been made on 26/27.02.2015 so as to suggest that the amount of Rs. 88,66,077/- included the refund of amount of Rs. 57.50 Lacs with interest payable to the applicant/third party objector - Even assuming the deposition in the affidavit dated 28.02.2024 to be correct for the sake of convenience and it is true that the amount, which was refunded to the S.K. Trading with regard to the property at Haldwani, had been refunded, by the same very logic the tabulated statement should have shown the amount which is due to the applicant/third party objector. The IFCI has not duly accounted for the amount payable to the applicant/third party objector. The details of the remittances made by IFCI to the Official Liquidator are yet to be verified and their claims as to the secured creditor are yet to be adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seventy six immovable assets of the company (in liquidation) with the Official Liquidator. 3. It further borne out from the record that pursuant to the above-noted orders of this Court, IFCI deposited a total sum of Rs. 13,10,19,293/- with the Official Liquidator during the period 13.01.2009 to 06.02.2012 in the following truncated manner - Rs 4,89,64,150/- on 22.10.2013; Rs.2,20,90,173/- on 27.11.2013; Rs.88,66,077/- on 27.02.2015 and Rs.5,10,98,893/- on 10.04.2015. 4. However, a stalemate arose since the IFCI did not provide a break-up or bifurcation of the amounts received with respect to the properties sold/auctioned under the aegis of the learned DRT. 5. At this juncture, it is apposite to note that the present application pertains to the sale of the property of the company (in liquidation) viz., the Microwave Tower as well as the Land situated at Aligarh, Western Uttar Pradesh, which sale was conducted vide the orders of the learned DRT dated 23.04.2009. It is the case of the applicant/third party objector that they were willing to purchase the property in question for an amount of Rs. 57,50,000/-, which was in excess of the bid amount of Rs. 56,50,000/- put forth by the high ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the applicant/third party objector, that the present application is predicated on the affidavit filed by the IFCI on 05.03.2015 before the learned DRT, wherein it is stated that the sum of money, which is to be refunded to the applicant herein, stands deposited with the Official Liquidator. The relevant portion of the affidavit dated 05.03.2015, filed on behalf of the IFCI, is reproduced hereinbelow: the deponent submits that in compliance of Hon 'ble High Court's order dated 01.08.2013 11.11.2014, IFCI has deposited Rs.4,89,64,510/- on 22.10.2013, Rs. 2, 20, 90, 173/- on 27.11.2013 and Rs.88,66,077/- on 02.03.2015 with the OL which was received against the auction of the land only and therefore, money belonging to objector Shri Sachin Jain has also been deposited with the OL. . 10. A reply to the instant application, dated 04.04.2022 has been filed by IFCI, wherein it is canvassed that the amount payable to the applicant has already been deposited by IFCI with the Official Liquidator. In this regard, it is brought forth that the amount of Rs. 88,66,077/- transmitted by IFCI on 26.02.2015 to the Official Liquidator included the amount of Rs. 57,50,000/-, which had been d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led break-up, it should place on the record the sale deeds of each of the properties auctioned so as to bring a quietus to the controversy. ANALYSIS DECISION : 14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties at the Bar. I have perused the relevant record of the case. 15. At the outset, ICFI is cutting an extremely sorry figure in demonstrating that the amount of Rs. 57.50 Lacs received from the applicant/third party objector was remitted to the Official Liquidator comprised in the payment made on 26.02.2015/27.02.2015 amounting to Rs. 88,66,077/-. First things first, evidently the amount of Rs. 57.50 Lacs, which was deposited by the applicant/third party objector with the DRT was remitted to the ICFI and received by it on 19.03.2010. The applicant/third party objector was constrained to move the instant CO. APPL. 1019/2017 before this Court on 01.05.2017 and the matter has lingered on for want of submission of better particulars on the part of IFCI. The matter came up for consideration before this Court on 28.01.2022 and it would be apposite to refer to the detailed directions that where passed by this Court, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een auctioned through the DRT. 12. The IFCI would also file its reply to the present application with an advance copy to the applicant and a copy to the Official Liquidator who may file response thereto, if any, before the next date of hearing. 13. In the event of the IFCI failing to file the breakup and the reply within ten days from today, the IFCI shall deposit costs of Rs.1 lakh with the Registrar General of this Court within one week from the next date, failing which this Court would initiate contempt proceedings against the IFCI. 14. The IFCI shall further explain, in both the breakup as well as the affidavit filed in reply to the present application, the delay in complying with the orders passed by this Court despite repeated orders having been passed as already noted hereinabove. The officer/officers responsible for such delay shall also be named in the said affidavit so that, should necessity arise, this Court can proceed against the said officers. 15. Re-notify on 24th February, 2022. 16. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the first affidavit was filed by Ms. Pooja Singla, Deputy General Manager (Law) on behalf of ICFI on 04.02.2022, in which inter alia it was deposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land and towers/movable properties sold by the DRT/Recovery Officer. 20. A careful perusal of the Annexure A‟ titled DETAILS OF ALL THE LAND/TOWERE SOLD BY THE DRT would show that the respective columns are containing abridged information/data about the location of the property of the company (in liquidation), the first name of the Auction Purchaser and the amount of sale consideration. I am afraid that the said Tabulated statement does not account for the amount of Rs. 57.50 Lacs received by IFCI and deposited by the present applicant/third party objector. As per IFCI, there were seven unsuccessful bidders whose amounts were to be returned. There is no mention of the applicant/third party objector therein too. 21. The long and short of the aforesaid discussion is that even in Annexure C , filed with the affidavit dated 04.02.2022, the receipt of Rs. 57.50 Lacs from Mr. Sachin Jain i.e. the applicant/third party objector is not accounted for. There is no covering letter accompanied with the remittances that have been made on 26/27.02.2015 so as to suggest that the amount of Rs. 88,66,077/- included the refund of amount of Rs. 57.50 Lacs with interest payable to the applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
