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

2012 Supreme(Del) 477

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MANMOHAN, J.
M/S Engineering Udyog & General Kamgar Union (Regd.)
Versus
Berry Sons India Ltd
CO.PET. 294 OF 2006
Decided On : 17-02-2012

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:L.B. Rai, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Kanwal Chaudhary, with Ms. Gunjan Chowksey, for Official Liquidator, Dinesh Garg, with Ms. Rachna Agrawal, R3 -Vikas hajan, /Ashwani Kumar Berry. Advocates.

The court's jurisdiction is limited to company law matters, and it cannot enforce personal agreements regarding personal property.

Headnote:

Liquidation - Property Ownership - Compromise Deed - Companies Act, 1956, Section 529A - Companies Act, 1956, Section 529 - Companies Act, 1956, Section 446 - Companies Act, 1956, Section 454 - Companies Act, 1956, Section 543 - Companies Act, 1956, Section 543 - Companies Act, 1956, Section 446 - Companies Act, 1956, Section 529 - Companies Act, 1956, Section 529A - Companies Act, 1956, Section 454

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over the ownership of a property and the release of funds deposited with the Official Liquidator by the purchaser and former directors of the company. The workmen sought release of Rs. 60 lacs based on a Compromise Deed, while the purchaser sought release of the property.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the property did not belong to the respondent company and therefore had no jurisdiction to impose restrictions on its transfer. It also held that it had no jurisdiction to enforce an alleged personal agreement between the former directors and the workmen regarding personal property.

Issues: Ownership of the property, jurisdiction of the court to enforce personal agreements, release of funds deposited with the Official Liquidator.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's jurisdiction is limited to matters within the scope of company law, and personal agreements regarding personal property fall outside its purview.

Final Decision: The property was found not to belong to the company, and the court directed the release of the deposited amount. The workmen were granted liberty to file appropriate proceedings for enforcement of their rights arising from the Compromise Deed.

Judgment

MANMOHAN, J

Co. Appls.311/2009 & 907/2009 in Co. Pet. 294/2006

While application being Co. Appl. No. 311/2009 has been filed by the purchaser of property bearing No. K-78, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi, seeking release of the property from the Official Liquidator, Co. Appl. No. 907/2009 has been filed by the workmen of the respondent company for release to themselves Rs. 60 lacs deposited with the Official Liquidator by the purchaser as well as former Directors of the company.

Mr. L.B. Rai, learned counsel appearing for workmen states that by virtue of a Compromise Deed dated 19th September, 2004, two Directors of the respondent company namely, Mr. Ajay Kumar Berry and Mr. Ashwani Berry had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 60 lacs to the workmen from the sale proceeds of the aforesaid property. Mr. Rai, learned counsel has drawn this Court’s attention to paragraph 1 of the aforesaid Compromise Deed which reads as under:-

“1. Both the parties have agreed that the management has to pay the workers towards gratuity and Service Compensation and arrears of salary and also towards all sorts of liability at Rs.60,00,000/-(Sixty Lakhs). It has been agreed that Rs. 60,00,000/-will be payable to the worker from Management towards full and final settlement of their claim.

And it was further agreed that the said Rs. 60,00,000/-(Rs. Sixty Lakhs) will be paid within Sixty days from the date of this Compromise. In the above liability of Rs. 60,00,000/-(Rs. Sixty Lakhs) Sh. Ajay Berry will be liable to pay Rs. 35,00,000/-(Rs. Thirty Five Lakhs) and Ashwini Berry will be liable to pay Rs. 25,00,000/-(Rs. Twenty Five Lakhs) which will be paid after recovering from the property of Ajay Berry and Aswini Berry i.e. K-78, First Floor, Hauz Khas, Delhi.”

Mr. Rai, learned counsel has also drawn this Court’s attention to the order passed by this Court on 25th May, 2009. Since considerable emphasis has been laid on the said order by Mr. Rai, the said order is reproduced herein below:-

“1. This application has been filed by Anurag Sharma and his wife Smt. Poonam Sharma claiming to have purchased the property no. K-78, Hauz Khas Enclave pursuant to two sale deeds both dated 7th July, 2008 for the total sum of Rs. 8 crores executed in their favour by Mr. Ashwani Berry. It has been pointed out that the property was owned by Sh. S.S. Berry who expired leaving behind four heirs, two sons namely Sh. Ashwani Berry and Sh. Ajay Berry and two daughters namely Ms. Geeta Suri and Ms. Kavita Kataria. The other sisters and brother of Sh. Ashwani Berry relinquished their shares in favour of Sh. Ashwani Berry who executed the aforenoticed two sale deeds.

2. On a prima facie consideration of the matter, it would appear that the property was never transferred in the name of the company. However Ms. Manisha Tyagi appearing for the official liquidator has pointed out that the ex-directors of the company are yet to appear and facilitate the enquiry being undertaken which would include all matters relating to the subject property. It has also been pointed out that an industrial plot of the company has been sold shortly before the filing of the present winding up petition in the year 2006 which plot was owned by the company.

3. The enquiry of the official liquidator so far as the property which is the subject matter of this application is concerned, is still not completely over.

4. It has been claimed that a settlement has been arrived at and signed both by Sh. Ashwani Berry and Sh. Ajay Berry wherein it was agreed by them on behalf of the company that upon sale of the first floor, they would pay an amount of Rs.60 lakhs. The official liquidator is also examining the legal consequences of this settlement and the effect it would have on the plea raised by the applicants.

5. This application has been filed for the reason that pursuant to the order dated 21st October, 2008, appointing the official liquidator attached to this Court as the liquidator of the company, the official












































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top