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

2022 Supreme(Del) 1533

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Yashwant Varma, J.
M/s Vipul Logistic & Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Dsiidc & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 7047, 10059 of 2014, Civil Miscellaneous No. 16542 of 2014, 32002, 32004 of 2020
Decided On : 16-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
Rohan Jaitley, Advocate, Bhumika Kapoor, Advocate, Surbhi Sardana, Advocate, Dev Pratap Shahi, Advocate, Anusuya Salwan, Advocate, Nikita Salwan, Advocate, Abhishek Singh Pundir, Advocate, Bankim Garg, Advocate, Chaitanya Bansal, Advocate, A.K. Tewari, Advocate, Tushar Upreti, Advocate, Sudhir Nandrajog, Advocate, Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate

Headnote:

Auction - Property Rights - Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 - [1992 act] - Section 3 - Summary: The court adjudicated competing rights over a property in New Delhi. Vipul Logistic claimed rights as the auction purchaser under the 1992 act, while Raven Services claimed rights based on an asserted sale by Killick Nixon. The court found Vipul Logistic not to be a bona fide purchaser and dismissed its claim, while directing the Corporation to consider Raven Services' claim for regularisation and restoration of the lease deed in accordance with the prevalent policy.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved competing claims over a property in New Delhi. Vipul Logistic claimed rights as the auction purchaser under the 1992 act, while Raven Services claimed rights based on an asserted sale by Killick Nixon. The court found Vipul Logistic not to be a bona fide purchaser and dismissed its claim, while directing the Corporation to consider Raven Services' claim for regularisation and restoration of the lease deed in accordance with the prevalent policy.

Finding of the Court:

The court found Vipul Logistic not to be a bona fide purchaser and dismissed its claim, while directing the Corporation to consider Raven Services' claim for regularisation and restoration of the lease deed in accordance with the prevalent policy.

Issues: Competing rights over a property in New Delhi, claim of Vipul Logistic as the auction purchaser, claim of Raven Services based on an asserted sale by Killick Nixon, regularisation and restoration of the lease deed.

Ratio Decidendi: Vipul Logistic was not recognized as a bona fide purchaser, and its claim was dismissed. The Corporation was directed to consider Raven Services' claim for regularisation and restoration of the lease deed in accordance with the prevalent policy.

Final Decision: Vipul Logistic's claim was dismissed, and the Corporation was directed to consider Raven Services' claim for regularisation and restoration of the lease deed in accordance with the prevalent policy.

JUDGMENT

Yashwant Varma, J. - These writ petitions have been preferred with the petitioners' asserting competing rights and interests in property bearing No. 217/B, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- III, New Delhi. Vipul Logistic claims rights over the said property by virtue of being the successful auction purchaser in proceedings which were conducted by the custodian under the Provisions of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) act, 1992 [1992 act]. Raven Services, the petitioner in the connected matter, claims rights on the basis of an asserted sale made in its favour by Killick Nixon, the judgment debtor on 26 October 2003.

2. In order to evaluate and adjudge the rights of the respective petitioners which are claimed in these two writ petitions, it would be appropriate to briefly advert to the following background facts. On 14 July 1980, the Commissioner of Industries, Delhi is stated to have leased the said property to M/s Lalita Dolls, a partnership firm. The original allottee is stated to have executed an agreement to sell in favour of one M/s Killick Nixon on or about September 1990. The respondent Corporation, which is the successor entity of the Commissioner of Industries, asserts that the said transfer was in violation of clause 5(a) of the lease deed. It is contended that clause 5 clearly injuncted the lessee from transferring, selling, assigning or otherwise parting with the possession of the whole of or any part of the industrial plot except with the previous consent of the lessor. The record further reflects that since no such consent had been obtained by the original lessee, the lease deed came to be determined by an order of 2 March 1993. Killick Nixon to whom the property had been conveyed by the original lessee is stated to have preferred an appeal before the Lt. Governor. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed on 27 august 1998. Despite the cancellation of the lease, the respondent Corporation did not obtain possession of the leased premises.

3. From the facts placed on the record by the Custodian, it further transpires that one M/s Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. was declared as a notified party under the provisions of the 1992 act on 5 august 1992. Consequent thereto all the properties of that notified party came to be attached in pursuance of the provisions made in Section 3 of the 1992 act. Killick Nixon was recognised as the judgment debtor of M/s Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. Post attachment of the property in question under Section 3 of the 1992 act, the Special Court proceeded to take steps for the auction of the attached properties. The sale of the attached properties of the judgment debtor which included the leased premises in question was notified for sale by way of a public notice which came to be published on 17 November 2005. Vipul Logistics participated in the auction proceedings and emerged as the highest bidder. Its bid which stood at Rs. 3.55 crores came to be accepted by the Special Court in terms of its order of 21 December 2005. From the proceedings of that date, it further transpires that Raven Services also filed objections. This appears to have been prompted in light of the transfer of the leased premises by M/s Killick Nixon in its favour on 26 august 2003. While noticing the objection which had been preferred at its behest, the Special Court proceeded to pass the following order:-

    'IN THE SPECIaL COURT (TRIaL OF OFFENCES RELaTING TO

    TRaNSaCTIONS OF SECURITIES aCT 1992) aT BOMBaY

    REPORT NO. 63 OF 2005

    REPORT OF THE CUSTODIaN DaTED 14.12.2005 FOR SaLE OF LEaSE HOLD RIGHTS IN PERPETUITY OF INDUSTRIaL LaND aND STRUCTURE SITUaTED aT 217-B OKHLa INDUSTRIaL ESTaTE. PHaSE -III. NEW DELHI 110 020 - BELONGING TO M/S KILLICK NIXON LTD.. JUDGMENT DEBTORS OF M/S DHaNRaJ MILLS PVT. LTD aN ENTITY NOTIFIED UNDER THE SPECIaL COURT (TRIaL OF OFFENCES RELaTING TO TRaNSaCTIONS IN SECURITIES) aCT. 1992.

    Mr. G.R. Joshi i/b M/s P.M.S. Slithi & co. for the Custodian.

    Mr. Shekhar Sherya with Mr





            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 Back to top