( 1 ) IN this group of Company Applications, the controversy revolves around the rights that the lessors or persons claiming to be heirs of the lessors have in different parcels of lands given on lease in distant past to various Companies, which are now in liquidation (the Company); they are claiming back the possession of the said lands on various grounds that have been stated in the applications and urged during the course of hearing.

( 2 ) BEFORE adverting to submissions made on behalf of various contesting parties a brief recapitulation of historical facts is necessary.

( 3 ) ON 7/10/1994 this Court (Coram :mr. Justice M. S. Parikh), had passed a common order in Company Application No. 47 of 1993 with Company Application No. 48 of 1993 with Company Application No. 49 of 1993 in Company Petition No. 72 of 1991. The said applications filed by the heirs and legal representatives of deceased lessor of respective properties being land as particularly described in the applications were for directions to return the land to the said applicants. The Court came to the conclusion that the lease deeds in question were non determinable, fully transferable and assignable permanent lease deeds, and hence, even if a notice to determine such lease had been given such notice was not valid on correct construction of the lease deed in question. As a consequence, the Court held that the Company in liquidation represented by the Official Liquidator was not a statutory tenant; accordingly, it was not possible to direct the Official Liquidator to hand over possession of the lands in question. However, the Court directed payment of rent of the leasehold lands from the date of winding up directly to the lessors.

( 4 ) THE matter was carried in appeal and the respective appeals were registered as O. J. Appeal Nos. 48, 49, 50 of 1998. The said appeals came to be heard along with two other appeals being O. J. Appeal No. 68 of 1998 in Company Application No. 207 of 1994 with O. J. Appeal No. 70 of 1998. All the appeals were taken up for hearing together by Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Mr. Justice B. C. Patel [as he then was] and Mr. Justice K. M. Mehta), which were disposed off by a common judgment dated 16/12/1999. The Division Bench (speaking through Mr. Justice B. C. Patel) remanded the matter for giving further opportunity of hearing and to decide the matter afresh, because according to the Division Bench it was necessary to have on record the details as to whether the applicants were only heirs, as to what would be the rights of the so called lessors in light of there being secured creditors having mortgage over the leasehold interest, and as to what would be the effect of such mortgage. Thus, the Court found that necessary material facts and findings on these and related questions were not available on record which would enable the Division Bench to decide the question. The Court further observed - " The question which is raised before us goes to the root of the matter but unfortunately the attention of the learned Single Judge was not drawn on certain relevant aspects by the Advocates appearing in the matter". In this context, the matter was remanded leaving it open to the Company Court to decide the matter afresh on the material that may be placed before the Court.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER, it appears that the aforesaid Company Applications which were remanded by the Division Bench and various other applications which came to be filed subsequently were taken up for hearing from time to time, but could not be proceeded with for various reasons. Ultimately on 14/2/2002,the Court (Coram: Mr. Justice M. S. Shah), after hearing the Advocates of various lessors as well as Advocates of different financial institutions and banks along with the Advocates for the Official Liquidator and the Textile Labour Association made a suggestion to the parties as to whether it was possible for the lessors to agree to transfer their freehold rights a