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

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
S.Jayanthi – Appellant
Versus
Official Liquidator,  High Court Madras. As Provisional Liquidator of Maxworth Orchards (India) Limited – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mrs.A.L.Ganthimathi, Senior Counsel for M/s.AR.Karthik Lakshmanan Applicants in Comp.A.Nos.362&363 of 2022 & Respondents in Comp. A.Nos.594 to 596 of 2009
For Respondents:Mr. H.Karthik Seshadri Assisted by Ms.Nagasaila Suresh, Administrator & Ms.Ambili, B, Deputy Official Liquidator Respondents in Comp. A.Nos. 362 & 363 of 2022 and Applicants in Comp.A.Nos.594 to 596 of 2009 Mr.J.Nithyanandan for R3 in Comp.A.Nos.362 & 363 of 2022 Mr.C.Selvaraj, AGP for R23 to R25 in Comp.A.Nos.594 to 596 of 2009

ORDER :

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

Background - The Company in provisional liquidation [the Company] had obtained powers of attorney in favour of its ex-employees, A.Venkatesan and R.Natarajan, in relation to the acquisition of lands in the Minnathur Village. According to the Company, these powers of attorney were executed in favour of its ex-employees upon receipt of the entire sale consideration by the respective land owners. After the Company ran into financial trouble, it is stated that fraudulent transactions were undertaken both by the original land owners and by the ex-employees/agents of the Company.

2. Upon obtaining details in respect thereof from the caretaker, the Company filed Comp.A.Nos.594 to 596 of 2009 to set aside the sale deeds mentioned in the Judge's summons of Comp.A.No.594 of 2009, declare that respondents 1-22 therein do not have right, title or interest in the properties described in the schedule and restrain respondent 1 to 22 therein from interfering with the Company's possession; to restrain respondents 23 and 24 from registering conveyances or issuing pattas, respectively; and for a direction to respondent 25 to provide protection to the caretaker, recei

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top