IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.Y. KOGJE, SAMIR J. DAVE, JJ.
M/S RARE ASSET RECONSTRUCTION LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
OL OF M/S SHUKAN CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. – Respondents
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 591 of 2023 In F/O.J.APPEAL NO. 6498 of 2023 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 592 of 2023 In F/O.J.APPEAL NO. 6500 of 2023 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 593 of 2023 In F/O.J.APPEAL NO. 6499 of 2023 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 594 of 2023 In F/O.J.APPEAL NO. 6501 of 2023 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 595 of 2023 In F/O.J.APPEAL NO. 6502 of 2023 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 596 of 2023 In F/O.J.APPEAL NO. 6503 of 2023 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 597 of 2023 In F/O.J.APPEAL NO. 6504 of 2023 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 598 of 2023 In F/O.J.APPEAL NO. 6505 of 2023 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 599 of 2023 In F/O.J.APPEAL NO. 6506 of 2023 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 600 of 2023 In F/O.J.APPEAL NO. 6507 of 2023 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 601 of 2023 In F/O.J.APPEAL NO. 6508 of 2023 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 602 of 2023 In F/O.J.APPEAL NO. 6509 of 2023 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 603 of 2023 In F/O.J.APPEAL NO. 6510 of 2023 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 604 of 2023 In F/O.J.APPEAL NO. 7644 of 2023 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 605 of 2023 In F/O.J.APPEAL NO. 7652 of 2023 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 606 of 2023 In F/O.J.APPEAL NO. 7657 of 2023 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 607 of 2023 In F/O.J.APPEAL NO. 7658 of 2023 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 608 of 2023 In F/O.J.APPEAL NO. 7659 of 2023 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 752 of 2023 In F/O.J.APPEAL NO. 10100 of 2023 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 753 of 2023 In F/O.J.APPEAL NO. 10321 of 2023 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 754 of 2023 In F/O.J.APPEAL NO. 10089 of 2023 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 755 of 2023 In F/O.J.APPEAL NO. 10227 of 2023
Decided On : 22-08-2024
Leave - Company Applications - Companies Act 1956, Sections 433, 434, 531A - The court interpreted the provisions regarding winding up and secured creditors' rights, emphasizing the necessity of including interested parties in proceedings affecting mortgaged properties.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, an asset reconstruction company, sought leave to appeal against orders allowing private respondents to release properties from liquidation proceedings, arguing that their mortgage interest was not considered by the Company Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant had a vested interest in the properties due to a prior mortgage and that the Official Liquidator failed to recognize this interest, warranting the grant of leave to appeal.
Issues: Whether the applicant, as a secured creditor, had the right to challenge the Company Court's orders regarding properties mortgaged prior to winding up proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applicant's interest as a secured creditor must be acknowledged in the winding up proceedings, and the failure to include them as a necessary party was a significant oversight.
Result: Leave to appeal granted in favor of the applicant.
ORDER :
(A.Y. Kogje, J.) :
1. This group of applications are filed by Rare Assest Reconstruction Ltd. Company seeking Leave to Appeal for challenging the various orders passed by the Company Court Judge in the respective Company applications by which the Company Applications of the private respondents came to be allowed.
2. The subject matter being common, all the applications are taken up for joint hearing and disposal. Civil Application No.591 of 2023 in F/O.J. Appeal No.6498 of 2023 in Company Application No.11 of 2022 in Company Petition No.179 of 2015 to be the lead matter.
3. The matter pertains to the order passed by the Company Court in application filed by the private respondents praying for releasing of their respective properties from the proceedings of liquidation mainly on the ground that the private respondents have respectively entered into Registered Sale-deed of the immovable properties, which belong to the Company under winding up. However, such Registered Sale-deed was much prior to the proceedings for winding up being initiated. This respective Company Applications came to be allowed by the Company Court by the respective impugned orders. As a result of which, the plots of land regarding which, transaction in the form of either Agreement to Sale or Sale-deed had taken place, were ordered to be released in favour of the private respondents.
4. The applicant, an asset reconstruction company, herein claims to be holding Mortgage-deed of the entire plots of land within which, respective plots of land are located and in connection with which, each private respondent being independent plot holder filed separate applications before the Company Court, but without making applicant as party, though interested, the impugned order has been passed and therefore, Leave to Appeal is prayed for.
5. Original proceedings being the Company Petition No.179 of 2015 were for winding up of one Shukan Corporation Pvt. Ltd.; respondent No.3 herein, filed by Daga Marketing Pvt. Ltd.; respondent No.2 herein under Section-433 and 434 of the Companies Act 1956 and the learned Company Judge by its order dated 17-08-2015 was pleased to order admitting the petition and appoint the Provisional Liquidator. Thereafter, accordingly, the respondent No.4- Company came under the winding up proceedings. The applicant herein has substituted Religare Finvest Ltd. by deed of assignment of debt.
5.1 Religare Finvest Ltd. had advanced the loan facility to the respondent No.3- Company to the tune of Rupees Twenty Five Crore and in order to secure the said loan registered mortgage was created on the property named as Project ‘Shukan Palace-III’. It appears that in the year 2014, the respondent No.3 was declared as ‘Non Performing Asset (NPA)’ by the then Religare Finvest Ltd.
6. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has submitted that based on the Mortgage-deed, an interest was created in favour of the applicant in connection with the property, which is mortgaged by the Company under winding up.
6.1 It is submitted that the respondent No.3 had executed registered Sale-deed in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 7 on 30-01-2014 and thereafter, the Company Petition No.179 of 2015 came to be filed by the respondent No.2 seeking winding up of the respondent No.3; Shukan Corporation Pvt. Ltd. however, prior thereto the Mortgage deed was also executed.
6.2 It is submitted that the fact that the applicant had interest in the property arising out of the Mortgage-deed was brought to the notice of the Official Liquidator by letter dated 07-10-2021 and also brought to the notice Assignment Agreement dated 27-09-2021 with Religare Finvest Ltd. However, the Official Liquidator did not allow the applicant to be substituted.
6.3 It is submitted that the Official Liquidator thereafter filed the Report and pursuant to the order passed on such Report, claim was invited from all classes of creditor and the workman and in connection with this, an Advertisement was publishe
Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Ltd. v/s. Haryana Concast Limited and Another
The court established that secured creditors must be included in winding up proceedings to protect their interests in mortgaged properties.
A secured creditor must involve the Official Liquidator in the auction of assets during liquidation proceedings, as statutory compliance is essential to protect creditor interests and ensure transpar....
The court affirmed the validity of an equitable mortgage created in favor of a bank, rejecting claims of exclusive ownership by a wife regarding property allegedly mortgaged by her husband.
The primary intention of the arrangement, as clarified in the MoU, influenced the court's decision in determining the ownership of the property and the repayment of the loan amount.
Equitable mortgage can exist without a formal deed if intention and conduct indicate binding security rights.
Court clarified that post-liquidation, property possession must be secured legally; unauthorized dispossession is not permitted, aligning with principles of due process.
Transactions executed after the commencement of winding-up proceedings are void under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act unless validated by the court, reinforcing the need for evidence that such tr....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.