Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (9) TMI 1290

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1. These appeals lay a challenge to the orders dated 23rd August, 2011; 25th August, 2011; 9th September, 2011; and 22nd November, 2011. By these orders, the learned Company Judge has dismissed the applications filed by the appellants under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act praying for acceptance of the sale of plots of the respondent's company to them. Inasmuch as the identical question on law and facts are concerned, we are taking up these appeals together. 2. Notice has been served on the respondent company which is under liquidation. Mr. Rajiv Bahl, learned Standing Counsel for the official liquidator who is present in another case listed today, accepts notice of this case on behalf of the respondent. Copies of the appeals have bee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .J. Ganapati claiming himself the Project Manager and the Authorized Representative of the respondent company took further payment even after the winding up orders were passed and the official liquidator had been appointed as the provisional liquidator. He further executed sale deeds in favour of the appellant purporting to act on behalf of the company. 7. The said Colonel Ganapati concealed the factum of the pendency of winding up proceedings and the orders passed therein. The appellant makes a grievance that these properties of the company were located at Hyderabad and the appellants were otherwise also not aware of the proceedings or the orders passed by the learned Company Judge. 8. During the process of liquidation, claims were invit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot in question in terms of the agreement to sell which was unauthorisedly entered into by the respondent company and hence the present case was a fit case for passing of the order under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act. 11. We are informed that apart from the appellants there were several other persons who were identically situated who had been also directed by Mr. Ganpati to part with the remaining part of the sale consideration for the lands. Their claims were also rejected by the One Man Committee and they had also approached the learned Company Judge by way of filing an application under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act. Some of these applications were rejected by the learned Company Judge by order passed on 23rd August, 2011 and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... can be no dispute with regard to the fact that receipt of the part sale consideration by Colonel Ganapati, was without any authority of law. The sale deed was executed by him after passing of the order of the Reserve Bank of India as well as after appointment of the provisional liquidator. The One Man Committee had however accepted the validity of the agreements to sell as well as receipt of the part payment by the company prior to the filing of the widing up petition. In this background, even if the receipt of the consideration by Colonel Ganapati and the execution of the sale deed was invalid, the learned Company Judge would be required to examine the question as to whether the appellants were the bonafide purchaser of the property in q .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mber, 2012 and 17th of December, 2012, we are inclined to accept the explanation tendered by the appellants, firstly, in filing the appeals and thereafter, in refiling the same as well. 19. The view has been taken in the peculiar facts and circumstances which have been set out in detail above. 20. In view of the above, we direct as follows: (i) the delay in filing the appeals as well as the refiling the same is hereby condoned. (ii) the impugned orders dated 23rd August, 2011; 25th August, 2011; 9th September, 2011; and 22nd November, 2011 are hereby set aside and quashed. (iii) the cases are remanded to the learned Company Judge for deciding on merit afresh in the light of the observations made by us in this order as well as taking .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates