Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1014
High Court of Delhi
R.V. EASWAR
Dinesh Mittal & Others
Versus
Triveni Infrastructure Development Company Ltd.
Co. Appl. No. 256 of 2013 Co. Appl. No. 240 of 2013 In Co. Pet. No. 39 of 2009
Decided On : 01-04-2014
For the Petitioners:Sanjay S. Chhabra, Advocate for ex-director.
For the Respondent:Ashish Makhija, OL, P. Nagesh, Advocates.
The court emphasized the role of the Official Liquidator in protecting the company's assets and stakeholders' interests, and the lack of evidence for the applicant's claim influenced the court's decision.
Headnote:
Attachment - Land Dispute - Criminal Procedure Code - Liquidation - Company Court
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought the release of lands from attachment to enable the sale deed execution. The company had entered into MoUs for land purchase, but the deals were cancelled. The applicant bid for the land in an auction but failed to deposit the amount, expressing disinterest. The applicant revived its attempt in 2013, claiming settlements with farmers, but failed to provide evidence. The Official Liquidator (OL) opposed the application, citing lack of title proof and commercial decision by the applicant.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the application, stating that the applicant had no right to compel the company to sell the land. The court noted the lack of evidence for settlements with farmers and the company's defective title to the lands. The court emphasized the OL's role in protecting the company's assets and stakeholders' interests.
Issues: Dispute over land attachment, validity of applicant's claim for land purchase, lack of evidence for settlements with farmers, and the OL's objections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence for settlements, the company's defective title to the lands, and the OL's role in protecting the company's assets and stakeholders' interests.
Final Decision: The application was dismissed, with the court clarifying that it had not expressed any opinion on the applicant's right to obtain a refund pending adjudication in another case.
R.V. Easwar, J.
CO. APPL. No.256/2013 (also numbered as CO. APPL. No.240/2013)
1. This is an application filed by M/s. Sanchar Nest Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd., which is a registered society bearing registration No.4302 of 22.07.2009 for carrying out the objective of identifying and constructing flats for its members, who are serving and retired employees of the Government of India and the public sector undertaking including BSNL. The following are the prayers in the application: -
“In the circumstances mentioned above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
(a) Direct the release of 32,135 sq. yds. of lands which does not belong to the company in liquidation from the attachment to enable the applicant to have the sale deed executed in respect of 32,135 sq. yds. of land of Khasra Numbers 961, 924, 933, 934, 931, 925, 907, 908, 906, 938, 939, 941, 949, 948, 955, 947, 952, 953, 943, 929, 900 at Vill. Mehrauli, Pargana Dasna, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad.
In the alternative
(b) Direct the release of the 9000 sq. yds. Of lands in Khasra No.924, 906, 943, 929, 961, 931, 925, 907, 939 and 941 at Vill. Mehrauli, Pargana Dasna, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad from attachment as the said partial of lands do not belong either to the company in liquidation or to the associate companies of the respondent company; and
(c) Pass any order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;”
2. Before I take up the rival contentions, it is necessary to give a brief introduction to the events which led to the filing of the application. On 01.12.2009 a memorandum of understanding was entered into between the applicant on the one hand and three companies, of which the company now in liquidation (M/s. Triveni Infrastructure Development Company Ltd.) is one, on the other. This MoU was for the purchase by the applicant of certain lands in Ghaziabad. The total extent of the land was 64,518.96 sq. yds. This MoU was, however, cancelled on 25.03.2010. On 26.04.2010, another MoU was entered into between the applicant, 3 companies and another company by name M/s. Rewari Developers Pvt. Ltd. in respect of 32,835.97 sq. yds. of land. In its order passed on 25.05.2010 it was directed by this Court that the applicant should pay the directors for the land who in turn will deposit the monies in the Court. In W.P. (Crl.) 390/2010 this Court noted that out of the sum of Rs.4,39,34,306/- payable towards 9000 sq. yds. of land, an amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- was deposited with the Registrar General and the balance of Rs.3,14,34,306/- was released directly to the investors who were part of the 380 investors verified by the Economic Offences Wing. This amounted to about 27.40% of the total price for the land.
3. In the meantime, it would appear that an auction sale of the land was ordered by this Court and pursuant to the same an auction was conducted. By that time, the applicant had deposited a total amount of Rs.8,32,34,307/- in Court. On 27.07.2011 the learned Company Judge noted that the applicant had successfully bid for the property for Rs.23.10 crores in respect of 27455.80 sq. mtrs. of land located in Ghaziabad on “as is where is and whatever” basis. In this order, the learned Company Judge recorded that: -
(a) The applicant had paid Rs.8.32 crores;
(b) The applicant had undertaken to pay the balance within a period of 4 months directly to the designated bank account;
(c) If the balance is not deposited within the stipulated period, 10% of the bid amount i.e. Rs.2.31 crores shall be forfeited; and
(d) Upon the balance being paid, the sale deed would be executed and possession would be handed over by the company to the applicant.
4. C.A. No.2375/2011 was then filed by the applicant before the learned Company Judge seeking return of the amount of Rs.8.32 crores with interest at 24% per annum on the ground that the company (M/s. Triveni Infrastructure Developme
