The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order resuming the property without the leave of the Company Court was illegal and invalid, and therefore deemed to be void ab initio and non-est in the eyes of the law.

Permod Kohli, J. - The applicant is the auction purchaser of the property of the Punjab Wireless Systems Limited, Company in Liquidation. Through the medium of this application, a prayer is made for the following directions :

(i) To execute the necessary conveyance deed in favour of the applicant;

(ii) Annul the order dated 16.05.2005 passed by the Estate Officer, PUDA for resumption of the property.

The application proceeds on the following admitted facts :

(i) Respondent No. 1 company was ordered to be wound up vide order dated 01.02.2001 and the official Liquidator was appointed as the Liquidator for the Company.

(ii) The Official Liquidator vide advertisement dated 10.03.2006 informed the general public about the sale of assets and property of the company in liquidation by way of Court auction to be conducted by the Company Court on 20.04.2006.

(iii) The bids/tenders were invited from the general public under the sealed cover along with earnest money. The immovable property of the Company was shown as lease hold property. The property was sought to be sold in different lots as notified.

(iv) The applicant submitted its bid for lot No. XX which, inter alia, included the land measuring 10814.45 sq. yards situated at A-15, Phase VI, Mohali. The applicant also deposited a sum of Rs. 36 Lacs as earnest money vide demand draft dated 16.04.2006.

(v) The Auction was held on 20.04.2006 and the applicant was declared as successful bidder with highest bid of Rs. 6.90 crores which was approved by the Company Court. The balance amount of Rs. 5.54 crores was deposited by the applicant vide demand draft No.420170 dated 24.04.2006 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Mohali, on 24.04.2006 with the Official Liquidator. The applicant requested the Official Liquidator respondent No. 2 to hand over the possession of the property vide its letter dated 25.04.2006 as also vide letter dated 26.04. 2006.

2. It appears that on account of certain delay, the applicant filed CA No. 451 of 2006 before this Court which came to be disposed of vide order dated 25.05.2005 on the statement of the Official Liquidator that the representatives of the Company can contact him and they will decide how to proceed with the issuance of the sale certificate. The applicant claims that he approached respondent No. 2 through various communications for execution of the sale deed in its favour. In the meantime the applicant came across order dated 16.05.2005 passed by the Estate Officer, PUDA, for resumption of the property (land) under Section 45 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the PRTPD Act"). The order further provides for forfeiture of the price of the plot including 10% interest and penalty in favour of the PUDA. It has been pleaded in the application that this order has been passed by the Estate Officer, PUDA- respondent No. 3, in utter disregard of the provisions of Section 446 of the Companies Act and is liable to be treated as void ab initio.

3. The Official Liquidator in his reply has admitted the entire factual background and so is the case of respondent No. 3. The only plea raised by respondent No. 3 is that the impugned order dated 16.05.2005 has been passed by the Estate Officer, PUDA in exercise of his powers under Section 45 of the PRTPD Act which is special statute and the same is not controlled by Section 446 of the Companies Act. It is further pleaded that the applicant has the alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the order of the Estate Officer, PUDA, before the Chief Administrator, PUDA under Section 45(5) of the PUDA Act and also a revision before the State Government against the order passed the Chief Administrator (Appellate Authority). In sum and substance, the plea raised is that the Company Court cannot interfere in such matters.

4. I have heard Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate, for the applicant, Mr. Puneet Kansal, Advocate, for the Official Liquidator and Mr. Rupinder Kohsla,