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

2013 Supreme(Bom) 72

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, A.A.SAYED
Sunita Vasudeo Warke – Appellant
Versus
Official Liquidator – Respondent


JUDGMENT:

1. The judgment of the learned Company Judge impugned in the appeal arose from a report of the Official Liquidator seeking : (i) A declaration that the sale of the immovable properties of the company in liquidation is null and void; (ii) A direction permitting the Liquidator to take possession of the property. While allowing the request of the Official Liquidator, the learned Company Judge has held that the Appellant had not made out a case under section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 for validating the alleged transfer of property in question in favour of the Appellant by the company in liquidation.

2. Hindustan Transmission Products Limited, the company now in liquidation, obtained a lease on 7 September 1990 from Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (`MIDC') in respect of a plot of land bearing No.H-16, at Waluj Industrial Area, in the Taluka of Gangapur near Aurangabad. On 7 April 1997, a company petition for winding-up was presented before the Company Court 1.

3. The Appellant claims to have paid an aggregate sum of Rs.30.00 lakhs to the company for the acquisition of the lease hold rights of the plot of land between 14 May 2007 and 26 September 2007. Ad







































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top