The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and the fiduciary relationship between the Power of Attorney and the principal in land transactions.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in C.A.No.470 of 2007: This Company Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Section 446 (2), 450, 456 and 457 of the Company''s Act read with Rules 9, 11 (b) and 19 of the Company Court Rules, 1959 to direct the Commissioner of police, Greater Chennai, Egmore the 6th respondent herein or such other competent police authorities to investigate the transactions stated in the report annexed herewith and file a report into this High Court.

in C.A.No.471 of 2007: This Company Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Section 446 (2), 450, 456 and 457 of the Companies Act read with Rules 9, 11 (b) and 19 of the Company Court Rules, 1959 to set aside the 12 sale deeds out by the 1st and 2nd Respondents bringing Nos.192 to 195 dated 10.3.2000, 226 to 229 dated 22.03.2000, 233 to 235 date 23.03.2000 and 1083 dated 27.6.2000 all registered in favour of the 3rd respondent herein SRO, Badvel, Cuddapah District in the Year 2000-2001 for in the respect of the 297.96 Acres and consequently declare that the conveyance any right, title or interest in the schedule property in favour of the respondents and consequently grant order of permanent injunction restraining the respondents, their men agent or any one claiming through them from anyway interfering with the possession to Applicant Company over the Schedule property.

in C.A.No.472 of 2007: This Company Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Section 446 (2), 450, 456 and 457 of the Companies Act read with Rules 9, 11 (b) and 19 of the Company Court Rules, 1959 to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 3 and their men agents or servants or anyone claiming through them from any way alienating by sale, mortgage, lease or otherwise over the Schedule property and consequently granting an injunction restraining the 4th and 5th respondents from registering any sale, mortgage or lease on the schedule of the properties pending disposal of the application.

in C.A.No.473 of 2007: This Company Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Section 446 (2), 450, 456 and 457 of the Companies Act read with Rules 9, 11 (b) and 19 of the Company Court Rules, 1959 to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents, their men, agent or servants or anyone claiming through them from any way interfering with lawful possession of Schedule property of the applicant company pending disposal of this application.)

Common Order:

V. Lakshminarayanan J.

1.This reference is placed before us as the Hon''ble Mr.Justice Vinod Kumar Sharma differed from the view taken by Mr.Justice P. Jyothimani in a batch of company applications. He had framed the following questions for reference:-

“(1).Whether application for setting aside the sale can be entertained, which is not supported by any affidavit, but based on a report of the Administrator/Official Liquidator;

(2).Whether in view of the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, the Company can be said to be the owner of the property, though the property is shown to be under ownership of the true owners throughout;

(3).Whether in absence of a petition under Sections 542 and 543 of the Companies Act, the transaction in favour of third party can be questioned by way of simple company application or company is required to file a civil suit to challenge the sale in competent Court having jurisdiction with permission of Company Court;

(4). What is the effect of Civil Court decree which has attained finality;

(5). Whether in absence of positive evidence of false misrepresentation, a finding can be recorded of fraud and misrepresentation, without trial only on basis of Administrator/Provisional Liquidator.

(6).Whether the Company Court has the jurisdiction to