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

1981 Supreme(Del) 68

B.N.KIRPAL
SUSHIL PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
VINOD MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.N.NAYAR, S.Jain

B. N. Kirpal

( 1 ) THE short question which comes up for consideration in this case is as to whether the petitioner is a secured creditor or not.

( 2 ) THE Company in liquidation belonged to the family of the petitioner. It ran into financial difficulties. Large sums of money were owed by the Company to the Central Bank of India.

( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he, along with his father and brother, was the owner of the property known as Swiss Hotel, Delhi. In order to see that the dues of the Central Bank of India from the Company in liquidation were cleared, the petitioner and his father and brother agreed to sell the said Swiss Hotel, Delhi to M/s. Oberoi Hotels (India) Pvt Ltd. The money which was to be realised from that was to be utilised for paying off the Central Bank of India for and on behalf of the said Company. According to the petitioner the Company had agreed that the money which is so paid would result in a mortgage or a charge being created by the Company of its property at Indore in favour of the petitioner and his father and brother. According to the petitioner, with a view to give effect to the aforesaid scheme, the petitioner and his father and brother i

















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