Dispositions made after winding up under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, are void unless validated by the Court, reaffirming the authority of the Official Liquidator over disputed properties.

ORDER :

Background:

Maxworth Orchards (India) Limited (the Company) was engaged in the business of acquiring lands and setting up fruit orchards/plantations thereon. Upon the Company running into financial difficulties, one of its creditors filed C.P.No.57 of 1998 for winding up the Company. The said petition was presented on or about 24.02.1998. By order dated 06.02.2006 in Comp.A.No.353 of 2006, the then Administrator (Shri.K.Alagiriswami), was conferred with all the powers of the Official Liquidator. By subsequent order dated 17.09.2010 in Comp.A.Nos.884 to 886 of 2008, the Official Liquidator was appointed as the Provisional Liquidator of the Company.

2. In course of business, one of the projects developed by the Company was the Maxworth-Pannamparai–II Project. According to the Company, it acquired about 102.98 acres of land in Pannamparai Village. Such acquisition was made through three employees, namely, Mr.P.Suresh Kumar, Mr.A.Pulivaganan and Mr.A.Arul, who were then employed as legal executives of the Company. Out of the said extent, it is stated that about 84 acres were allotted to customers. The acquisition was either through the execution of sale deeds or general powers of attorney in favour of these employees.

3. Upon receiving information that fraudulent transactions were undertaken both by the original land owners and by the ex-employees/agents of the Company, the Company filed Comp. A. Nos.1897 to 1900 of 2009 to: set aside the sale deeds mentioned in the Judge's Summons of Comp.A.No.1897 of 2009, declare that the said sale deeds do not convey any right, title or interest in the property described in the schedule in favour of respondents 1 to 13 and restrain the said respondents from interfering with the lawful possession of the Company over the schedule mentioned property; restrain respondents 1 to 13 from alienating the schedule mentioned property by way of sale, mortgage, lease or otherwise, restrain the 14^th respondent from registering any further sale, mortgage or lease and restrain the 15^th respondent from issuing pattas in respect of the survey numbers covered in the schedule; direct respondents 16 and 17 to give police protection to the care taker and to the property, receive complaints lodged by the caretaker, file FIRs and take suitable action.

4. By order dated 21.12.2009, orders of interim injunction as prayed for were granted in C.A.Nos.898 and 899 of 2009, thereby restraining the alienation of property, registration of sale deeds or conveyances in respect thereof and the grant of pattas in relation thereto. Respondents 1 to 13 were also restrained from interfering with the Company's possession of the property. The said interim order was subsequently extended until further orders by order dated 24.02.2011. Service of notice was effected initially on all respondents except respondents 1 to 6, 8 and 9. In respect of those respondents, substituted service was ordered by order dated 05.12.2013 in C.A.Nos.1112 of 2013. Pursuant thereto, substituted service was effected by publication in one issue dated 26.12.2013 of the English daily 'Indian Express'. Even after service was completed on all the respondents, none of the respondents endeavoured to apply to vacate or vary the interim