Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Sale deed contrary to Injunction is not a valid deed even though the applicant entitle to invoked Court jurisdiction under Sec 536(2) of Companies Act 1956

Diganta Paul ,
  24 November 2011       Share Bookmark

Court :
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Brief :
Present applications have been filed against the impugned orders passed by Mr. J. P. Aggarwal, one man Committee appointed by this Court rejecting their claims in respect of plots in JVG Hills Layout, Kondhapur Village, Hyderabad In view of the order dated 23rd August, 2011 passed in Co. Appl. 1633/2011 in Co. Pet. No. 265/1998 as well as the fact that sale deeds in the present applications have been executed and some payments have been paid only after appointment of Provisional Liquidator, this Court finds no infirmity in the decision rendered by the One Man Committee. It is pertinent to mention that the sale deeds have been executed contrary to a specific injunction order dated 05th June, 1998 and the payments made by the applicants after the appointment of Provisional Liquidator have not been received by the Official Liquidator. Further, no transparent procedure of sale/auction has been followed as is normally done in cases after appointment of Provisional Liquidator. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that even though the applicants are entitled in law to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, yet keeping in view the totality of the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief under the said Section
Citation :
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA ..... Petitioner versus M/S. JVG FINANCE LTD...... Respondent

 

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+          CO. APPLS. 2274/2011, 2280/2011, 2283/2011, 2286/2011,

2289/2011, 2292/2011, 2301/2011, 2304/2011, 2307/2011 &

2313/2011 IN CO. PET. 265/1998

 

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA                                                                               ..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Swati Setia, Advocate.

versus

M/S. JVG FINANCE LTD.                                                                                  ..... Respondent

 

Through: Mr. Rajiv Bahl, Advocate with Mr. Manish K. Bishnoi, Advocate for Official

            Liquidator.

Mr. P. Nagesh, Advocate with

Mr. Anand K. Mishra,

Advocate for Applicants.

 

%                                                         Date of Decision: 22nd November, 2011

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                                                                    Yes.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?                                      Yes.

J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN, J : (Oral)

 

1. Present applications have been filed against the impugned orders passed by Mr. J. P. Aggarwal, one man Committee appointed by this Court rejecting their claims in respect of plots in JVG Hills Layout, Kondhapur Village, Hyderabad. The details of the land where ownership is claimed as well as the dates of impugned sale deeds according to the impugned reports of the Committee are mentioned in the chart given below:

 

Sl.

No

CA No.

Plot No.

Date of Impugned

Sale Deed(s)

 

1.

2274/2011

B– 563

15/10/1999

 

2

2280/2011

C – 337

24/01/2000

3

2283/2011

C - 321

15/10/1999

4

2286/2011

4B – 549

(Eastern Part)

 

22/06/2000

 

5

2289/2011

B – 549

(Western Part)

 

22/06/2000

 

6

2292/2011

F – 231

02/12/1998

7

2301/2011

E – 323 A

12/06/1998

8

2304/2011

C – 387

17/07/1998

9

2307/2011

A– 530

27/01/2001

10

2313/2011

C - 374

10/07/1998

 

2. In view of the order dated 23rd August, 2011 passed in Co. Appl. 1633/2011 in Co. Pet. No. 265/1998 as well as the fact that sale deeds in the present applications have been executed and some payments have been paid only after appointment of Provisional Liquidator, this Court finds no infirmity in the decision rendered by the One Man Committee. It is pertinent to mention that the sale deeds have been executed contrary to a specific injunction order dated 05th June, 1998 and the payments made by the applicants after the appointment of Provisional Liquidator have not been received by the Official Liquidator. Further, no transparent procedure of sale/auction has been followed as is normally done in cases after appointment of Provisional Liquidator. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that even though the applicants are entitled in law to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, yet keeping in view the totality of the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief under the said Section.

 

3. Accordingly, the applications are dismissed. It is held that the applicants/claimants are not entitled to allotment of plots mentioned hereinabove. The applicants are further permanently restrained from selling, parting with possession and encumbering with the said plots on the basis of the impugned sale deeds. However, the applicants are entitled to simple interest @ 4% per annum on the amounts deposited prior to 5th June, 1998 with the respondent company on production of sufficient evidence to the Official Liquidator of payments made to the respondent company.

 

MANMOHAN,J

 
"Loved reading this piece by Diganta Paul?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Property Law
Views : 2339




Comments