9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Registrar of the High Court lodged the sale deed for registration in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Delhi. 2. Even the second respondent went into liquidation, and the plot was sold to the first respondent in the auction on 24th August 2000 in liquidation proceedings before the Delhi High Court. The auction was held pursuant to the notice of proclamation of sale issued by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 9th June 2000. 3. On 7th December 2000, the first respondent applied for confirmation of the sale made in the auction. The appellant appeared in the said proceedings and filed a reply. The appellant contended that at no point of time had M/s Mehta Constructions acquired any interest in the plot, and therefore, the plot could not have been sold in the auction. By the order 19th October 2001, the learned Single Judge allowed the application filed by the first respondent and confirmed the auction sale. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appellant preferred an appeal before the Division Bench. By the impugned judgment dated 21st January 2010, the appeal was dismissed. SUBMISSIONS 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant urged that what was executed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the lessor's prior consent was required to transfer the said plot. Placing reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Vijaya C. Gurshaney & Anr., (2003) 7 SCC 301 he submitted that the sale in favour of the first respondent was illegal. The learned senior counsel also relied upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Food Corporation of India & Ors. v. Babulal Agrawal (2004) 2 SCC 712, Delhi Development Authority v. Anant Raj Agencies Pvt.Ltd. (2016) 11 SCC 406, State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Gotan Lime Stone Khanij Udyog Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. (2016) 4 SCC 469 and Delhi Development Authority v. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. & Anr. (2020) 17 SCC 782. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that until the first respondent applied for confirmation of sale, the appellant never filed any proceedings to challenge the transactions between M/s Mehta Constructions and the second respondent. It was submitted that the appellant never challenged the auction process. It was submitted that no interference is called for with the impugned judgment. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS 7. There is no dispute that the Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansaction of transfer between M/s. Mehta Construction and Industrial Corporation and M/s. Pure Drinks Limited. The learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent seeks time to take instructions from the first respondent. We permit the appellant to implead Mr. Prashant Baliyan, Provisional Liquidator, Office of the Official Liquidator, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Corporate Bhawan, Plot No.4B, Second Floor, Sector 27B, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160019, as party respondent. The amended cause title be filed within three days from today. Issue notice to the newly added respondent. Mr. Prashant Baliyan, Provisional Liquidator, will have to make a statement about the availability of the amount deposited by the first respondent pursuant to the auction and, if such amount is available, whether it has been invested in a fixed deposit. As the service of notice will take time, we direct the appellant to inform Mr. Prashant Baliyan to appear before this Court on the next date of hearing by forwarding a copy of this order to him. We also direct the appellant to communicate to the learned counsel for the first respondent the amount payable in respect of both the tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us: "From the record, it transpires and it stands proved that the property in question which is in the shape of the land is the property of DDA which entered into a wrong agreement of lease dated 17.7.57 in favour of M/s Mehta Construction and in pursuance of that agreement the possession was delivered to M/s Mehta Construction and Industrial Corporation Ltd., which was a limited company. Unfortunately, M/s Mehta Construction could not discharge its liability as a result of which it went into liquidation and its lessee rights virtually were sold in public auction which were purchased by M/s Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd., vide a deed of conveyance dated 15.2.1985. This auction was conducted under the direction of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Meaning thereby, that M/s Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd., was substituted in place of M/s Mehta Construction. It also ran into financial difficulty running into financial deficiency and company petition for winding up was filed in this Court which was ordered to be admitted vide* order dated 28.8.1997. The publication has been affected under the orders of this court. The lessee rights which were given to M/s Mehta Construction and which were ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
