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

2020 Supreme(Bom) 736

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.D. Dhanuka, J.
Posh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Official Liquidator, Liquidator Of Transpower Engineering Ltd. - Respondent
Company Application No. 545 of 2018, 606 of 1998
Decided On : 21-08-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Prathamesh Kamat, Advocate, C.N. Mehta, Advocate, M/S Mmk Law Associates, Advocate, Shanay Shah, Advocate, Prashant Chawan, Advocate, Chaitali Kandare, Advocate, Aditya Marwal, Advocate, Navdeep Vora Associates, Advocate, Suhas Sawant, Advocate

Headnote:

[MAIN LEGAL POINT] The sale or transfer of the property by liquidator pursuant to an order of Company Court is certainly an involuntary transfer.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought an order and direction against the MIDC for transfer of immovable property in prayer clause (a) in the name of the applicant on payment of standard transfer charges and seeks extension of time for building completion by two years from the date of transfer of Plot No.B-16 in the name of the applicant. The applicant also sought an order and direction to supply water on Plot No.B-16 on payment of water charges from the date of confirmation of sale.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the transfer of the leasehold rights in the said plot in the name of M/s. Transpower Engineering Pvt. Ltd. by M/s. Transpower Corporation in whose favour the initial agreement was entered into by virtue of the said M/s. Transpower Engineering Pvt. Ltd. taking over M/s. Transpower Corporation as its proprietor being already barred by law of limitation, no recovery can be made by MIDC in respect of first transfer towards differential premium or under any other head.

Issues: Whether the MIDC is entitled to recover differential premium in respect of the said property sold pursuant an order passed by the Company Court for the first transfer of the partnership firm i.e. M/s. Transpower Corporation in favour of the Company in Liquidation as claimed or otherwise, the differential premium for the second transfer i.e. from company in liquidation to the applicant as demanded during the course of the argument or is entitled to recover only standard transfer charges or not?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the transfer of the leasehold rights of the company in liquidation in favour of the successful bidder pursuant to an order passed by the Company Court would not be a voluntary transfer but would be an involuntary transfer and would attract the payment of standard transfer charges only.

Final Decision: Company Application No. 545 of 2018 is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) & (c). Quantification of standard transfer charges payable on transfer of Plot No.B-16 on transfer of the leasehold rights in Plot No.B-16 from Transpower Engineering Ltd. (in liquidation) and extension charges shall be decided by the Official Liquidator within the time prescribed in para 131 aforesaid. Such payment of standard transfer charges and extension charges shall be paid by the Applicant within 4 weeks from the date of such adjudication by the Official Liquidator. Insofar as prayer clause (b) is concerned, Respondent No.2 is directed to extend the time for completing the building by two years from the date of transfer of plot No.B-16 in the name of the Applicant in the record of Respondent No.2 on payment of extension charges as may be decided by the Official Liquidator. Company Application No. 545 of 2018 is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

JUDGMENT

R.D. Dhanuka, J. - By this Company Application, the applicant seeks an order and direction against the respondent no.2 i.e. the Regional Officer, MIDC to transfer the immovable property being Plot No.B-16, MIDC, Taloja, Panvel Dist. Raigad admeasuring 4050 sq. meters in the name of the applicant being the purchaser of the said property and payment on standard transfer charges and also seeks an order and direction to extend the time for building completion by two years from the date of transfer of the said plot in the name of the applicant and for other reliefs. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this Company Application are as under :-

2. On 28th January, 1978 under a Partnership Deed, the firm namely M/s. Transpower Corporation was constituted. On 7th March, 1980 vide an agreement executed between MIDC and the said M/s. Transpower Corporation, the said Plot bearing No. B-16 situated within Taloja Industrial Area of MIDC, Taluka Panvel, Raigad District (hereinafter referred to as "the said plot") was allotted to M/s. Transpower Corporation on the terms and conditions set out therein. On 7th March, 1980, the MIDC handed over the possession of the said plot to the said M/s. Transpower Corporation. On 4 th May, 1980, the said M/s. Transpower Corporation was converted into a private limited company in the name "Transpower Engineering Private Limited".

3. On 31st December, 1980, the said partnership firm M/s. Transpower Corporation was dissolved. On 27th September, 1991, the said M/s.Transpower Engineering Private Limited was converted into a limited company, being the company in liquidation, vide special resolution dated 27th September, 1991. Form No. 23 was also filed in that regard by Transpower Engineering Private Limited with the Registrar of Companies. Sometime in the year 1998, M/s. Metal Tubes and Rolling Mills filed a winding up petition against the respondent company (in liquidation) in this Court. By an order dated 22nd January, 2008, the respondent company was ordered to be wound up by this Court.

4. It is the case of the official liquidator that on 31st March, 2010 Shri Shantaram Hari Bhoir who is worker of the respondent company addressed a letter to the official liquidator and informed that the said plot belonged to the respondent company in liquidation. Similar letter was also addressed by the said Shri Shantaram Hari Bhoir on 23rd November, 2010 on behalf of himself and other workers of the respondent company.

5. On 20th December, 2010, the official liquidator convened a meeting of the creditors and workers. It was decided to take possession of the said plot. The official liquidator accordingly addressed a letter dated 4th January, 2011 to all concerned informing that the possession of the said plot will be taken on 29th January, 2011. On 29th January, 2011, the official liquidator took possession of the said plot. On 15th March, 2011, the official liquidator received a letter addressed by Adv. C. N. Kumar on behalf of the workmen of the respondent company in liquidation giving details of the properties belonging to the said company in liquidation including the said plot.

6. On 23rd January, 2012, the official liquidator invited claims from workers/creditors under Rule 148 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The last date of filing of the claims was 10th February, 2012. The official liquidator received 285 claims. On 4th July, 2012, the official liquidator filed Official Liquidator's Report No. 261 of 2012 inter-alia praying for direction to permit the official liquidator to sell the said plot. On 21st June, 2012, this Court directed the official liquidator to sell the said plot on "as is where is and whatever there is" basis and as per the terms and conditions of sale. The official liquidator published a sale notice in two newspapers on 21st July, 2012 for inviting the bids in respect of the said plot. M/s. Attar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. submitted a bid for Rs.5,50,00,000/- to the official

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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