9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any, namely M/s. Padmavathy Panel Boards Limited was wound up and the Official Liquidator attached to this court was appointed as the Provisional Liquidator. The Official Liquidator on obtaining the valuation report, filed OLR.460/2012 seeking permission to sell the land, building, plant and machinery of the company in liquidation as one lot inviting bids through sealed tenders, which was permitted by an order dated 11.1.2013. Accordingly, a sale notification was published in two Kannada dailies and one English daily and tenders which were received were opened on 1.4.2013. Sale negotiations were held amongst the bidders on 1.4.2013. At the time of negotiation, one T. Venkatesh was the highest bidder who had offered a sum of Rs. 1.10 crore. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2/- as being its dues from the company in liquidation. Therefore, the applicant had only proceeded on that basis to make his bid and had no inkling of any such due in the range of Rs. 69.22 lakh as claimed by the KIADB. When the applicant sought further information of the outstanding dues payable by the company, KIADB had sought to justify its claim by a letter dated 5.3.2013. It is that which is the subject matter of the present controversy which is sought to be raised in the application. It is the case of the applicant that the claim by KIADB is not at all justified, as it transpires that KIADB is seeking to recover the difference in the value of the land as on date. It is that which is the controversy that is sought to be addressed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ughout and there is no indication that the same has been terminated and even according to the KIADB, the demand made on the original lessee as on 24.06.2000 was in a sum of Rs. 65,734/- as being payable under the lease-cum-sale transaction to complete the sale and convey the property. The same being unpaid, the further demand made in the year 2006 was in a sum of Rs. 1,34,922/- which is apparently the interest that has accrued on the original amount that was claimed in the year 2000 in a sum of Rs. 65,734/-. Therefore, in the absence of the termination of the lease deed and for the KIADB to proceed as if this was a fresh allotment made in favour of an auction purchaser at a price prevailing as on date, would not be tenable, as it is the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, is sought to be conveyed in favour of a third party, but can only be on the basis of the difference in land price as on the date of such conveyance in favour of a third party. This apparently would apply when the original lessee is no longer in possession and the land stands forfeited on termination of such lease and it is then open for the KIADB to claim the price of the land as on date. 6. In the present case on hand, since the Official Liquidator has taken over the assets of the company in liquidation as on the date, the land was taken over which was subject matter of a lease-cum-sale which continued to be in force as it was not terminated and the land did not stand forfeited in favour of the KIADB, it follows that what has been sol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
