SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 1221

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, VINEET SARAN, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
Stressed Assests Stabilization Fund - Appellant
Versus
West Bengal Small Ind. Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.4139 of 2008
Decided On : 21-10-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, AOR Ms. Vaishali Sharma,Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee,Adv. Mr. Saurav Gupta,Adv. Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
A donee or a grantee can have no rights in excess of that possessed by donor or grantor.

Headnote:

Companies Act, 1956 – Sections 535 – Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions Act) 1985 – Section 20 – Rights of donee/grantee – Company under liquidation – Termination of leasehold rights – Since exercise by lessor (WBSIDC) of its right to determine lease attained finality, mortgagee (represented by appellant) could not claim rights superior to that of lessee – A donee or a grantee can have no rights in excess of that possessed by donor or grantor – Mortgagee (whose shoes SASF has stepped into) of lessee (Wellman) can have no right greater or better than that of lessee in terms of deed of lease – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 10 and 11)

Facts of the case:

In this appeal by special leave, an affirming judgment of Calcutta High Court (dismissing appeal, against an order allowing respondent’s application under Section 535 of Companies Act, 1956 has been questioned. Appellant is a trust, constituted as a special purpose vehicle (SPV) by Central Government for acquiring by transfer, stressed assets of the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI), to administer and manage stressed assets and to recover amounts due, by framing schemes of restructuring, settlement etc. with borrowers. IDBI, through a deed of assignment, unconditionally transferred all loans and advances granted by it, to SASF, including the loans and securities in relation to the second respondent, company in liquidation.

Findings of Court:

Reasoning and conclusion of High Court do not call for interference. The finding that since exercise by the lessor (WBSIDC) of its right to determine lease attained finality, mortgagee (represented by the appellant) could not claim rights superior to that of lessee, is in consonance with settled law.

Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. In this appeal by special leave, an affirming judgment of the Calcutta High Court (dismissing the appeal, against an order allowing the respondent’s application under Section 535 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereafter “the Act”) has been questioned.

2. The appellant (hereafter “SASF”) is a trust, constituted as a special purpose vehicle (SPV) by the Central Government for acquiring by transfer, the stressed assets of the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI), to administer and manage the stressed assets and to recover amounts due, by framing schemes of restructuring, settlement etc. with borrowers. IDBI, through a deed of assignment, unconditionally transferred all loans and advances granted by it, to SASF, including the loans and securities in relation to the second respondent, the company in liquidation.

3. The facts are that Wellman Smith Owen Engineering Corporation, a company incorporated in the United Kingdom leased immovable property, which it took possession of, on a lease rent of Rs. 3600/- with effect from 1st April, 1962. The assets and business of Wellman were taken over, through an agreement dated 10th October, 1962 by Wellman Incandescent India Ltd (the second respondent, hereafter “Wellman”). Wellman entered into a fresh lease agreement with the Government of West Bengal, for a term of 99 years, in respect of one industrial property, i.e. Shed J-2 Howrah Industrial Estate, measuring 30612 square feet with effect from 1st September, 1968. A further lease was granted by the Government of West Bengal on 1st July, 1990 in respect of Shed J(i)/A measuring 260 square feet. On 6th May, 1992, Wellman borrowed Rs. 10 crores from the IDBI which entailed provision of security by way of hypothecation of movables and mortgage of the premises and properties leased to it, by the Government of West Bengal. A further advance of Rs.3 crores was obtained by Wellman towards working capital; this was again on the strength of equitable mortgage of the same immovable properties, including the said leased premises, through deposit of title deeds. The memorandum of entry in regard to this was carried out on 15th July, 1999. In the meanwhile, on 5th December 1994, the premises and properties in question along with several others, were assigned to the first respondent. Wellman’s financial woes became acute; it approached the Board for Industrial Finance and Reconstruction (BIFR) under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions Act) 1985 (“SICA”). The proceedings attempting rehabilitation were to no avail; the BIFR on 24th September, 2002 held that reconstruction was not possible and concluded that the company had to be wound up. A reference was accordingly made to the Calcutta High Court, under Section 20 of SICA. In the liquidation proceedings, the High Court directed the appointment of an Official Liquidator, requiring him to take charge of the company's (Wellman’s) assets.

4. The first respondent (hereafter “WBSIDC”) to whom the West Bengal state had assigned the rights of lease, in the meanwhile, determined the lease in terms of the allotment and the grant (of the lease) invoking the power reserved to the lessor (under the terms of the lease) as Wellman, the original allottee/lessee had ceased to carry on manufacturing activity beyond a stipulated acceptable period. The determination went unchallenged. WBSIDC approached the Calcutta High Court for restoration of possession of its properties which had been taken over by the Official Liquidator, in the meanwhile.

5. The single judge by an elaborately reasoned judgment, upheld WBSIDC’s argument that as lessor, it was entitled to possession in view of the lease condition, which automatically applied, because the original lessee had ceased to use the properties for the purpose originally contemplated, i.e. manufacturing activity. The single judge also took notice of provisions of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976. It

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top