MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
M. Lakshmi Narayana Choudhary —Petitioner
versus
The Official Liquidator, High Court,
Madras and Ors. —Respondents
Comp.A.No.125 of 2011
in
C.P.No.103 of 1993
Decided on 30.4.2013
(ii) Companies Act, 1956—Section 536—Companies (Court) Rules, 1959—Rule 9—Recovery of debt—Ratification of transfer of leasehold rights—Section 536 contains only a statutory declaration about validity of transactions entered into after commencement of proceedings for winding up and it does not provide a procedure for ratifying or invalidating a transaction—Applications filed in relation to same are to be construed only in terms of Rule 9, invoking inherent powers of Court—Power to enlarge time is available even if application is not made for such enlargement before expiration of time allowed or appointed.. (Paras 11.10 and 11.11)
(iii) Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993—Section 25—Recovery of debt—Company under liquidation—If originals had been deposited and if mortgage had been created, fact that Bank lost possession of those documents subsequently, would not mean that mortgage itself is invalid—According to applicant, he paid Rs.30.00 Lakhs to Bank for discharge of mortgage liability and for release of property from security—Today, after a period of about 14 years of such payment, applicant cannot claim that no valid mortgage was created—Mere fact that Recovery Officer chose to order attachment of property, would not militate against mortgage—Debts Recovery Tribunal has actually passed a decree and issued a certificate of recovery on the basis that there was a mortgage—Recovery Officer is only an instrument of Debts Recovery Tribunal and his order of attachment cannot eclipse or supersede mortgage decree and certificate of recovery issued by Tribunal—Contention that there was no valid mortgage created by company in liquidation in favour of State Bank of India rejected. (Paras 13.8 to 13.13)
(iv) Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962—Rules 57 and 58—Recovery of debt—Attachment and sale of immovable and movable properties—Payment of amounts by successful bidder should be as per terms and conditions of auction notice and as per Rules laid down in II Schedule to Income Tax Act, 1961—Respondent/auction purchaser committed default in payment of balance amount—There was no clause reserving power of Recovery Officer to extend time—Auction sale is liable to be set aside—Prayer of applicant for ratification of transfer of leasehold rights executed by deed by company in liquidation rejected—Applicant held to be not a bona fide transferee—Auction in favour of respondent is liable to be set aside by Debts Recovery Tribunal due to admitted failure on part of the highest bidder to comply with Rules 57 and 58—But, mortgage in favour of Bank upheld as there are no records to show that original documents were not deposited by company in liquidation with Bank. (Paras 13.8, 13.11, 13.13, 15.3, 15.4, 15.7, 15.10, 15.11 and 16)
Result: Company Petition dismissed.
V. Ramasubramanian, J.—This is an application taken out by a third party to the winding up proceedings, seeking the validation of a transaction that took place between him and the company in liquidation way back on 30.01.1997, transferring the leasehold rights that the company in liquidation had, on an immovable property. This application is filed under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. I have heard Mr.T.K.Seshadri, learned senior counsel for the applicant, Mr.M.Devaraj, learned counsel for the State Bank of India which brought the property to sale before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mr.Thiyageswaran, learned counsel appearing for the auction purchaser and Mr.Arvind Shukla, learned Official Liquidator.
3. The sequence of events that have led to the filing of the above application, can be summarised in the chronological order as follows:
(a) M/s. Easun Engineering Co. Ltd. was the sole and absolute owner of two pieces of land, one measuring 52507 sq.ft. (21 grounds and 2107 sq.ft.) and another measuring 6360 sq.ft. (2 grounds and 1560 sq.ft.), both bearing Municipal Door No. Old No.35/5 and New No.476, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035;
(b) Out of the aforesaid land of the total extent of 58867 sq.ft. (24 grounds and 1267 sq.ft.), the original owner M/s. Easun Engineering Co. Ltd. granted a lease in respect of small extents, out of one portion measuring about 9 grounds in favour of different lessees, with a view to enable all of them to jointly put up a multistoried complex, known as Temple Towers/Meenakshi Plaza;
(c) By a registered lease dated 30.3.1990 (registered as Document No.3256 of 1990 in the office of the District Registrar of Madras South), M/s. Easun Engineering Co. Ltd. granted a lease of an extent of 354 sq.ft. of land, out of the greater extent of 9 grounds, forming part of the whole extent, to and in favour of Sethuraman Thiayagarajan Engineers Pvt. Ltd., for a term of 999 years;
(d) In pursuance of the lease so obtained on 30.3.1990, in respect of the land of the extent of 354 sq.ft. for a period of 999 years, the lessee, namely, Sethuraman Thiayagarajan Engineers Pvt. Ltd. entered into a Builder’s Agreement on 9.4.1990 with a builder by name M/s.R.K. Investments, for putting up an office premises in the 5th floor of the proposed multistoried complex, measuring a built up area of 1279 sq.ft.;
(e) On 16.8.1993, a petition for winding up M/s. Sethuraman Thiayagarajan Engineers Pvt. Ltd. was filed on the file of this Court;
(f) When the company petition for winding up was pending, the State Bank of India, which is the third respondent herein, filed a suit on the file of this Court in C.S.No.2117 of 1995, against Sethuraman Thiayagarajan Engineers Pvt. Ltd. as well as its Directors and guarantors, praying for a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,96,44,468.77. The State Bank of India claimed in the suit that on 30.01.1991, the company (borrower) created an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds relating to the leasehold property. The leasehold property was described as item No.1 in Schedule ‘A’ to the plaint in the suit C.S.No.2117 of 1995, as follows:
Flat situate at Temple Towers of M/s. R.K.Investments, Old Door No.35/3, New No.476, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Madras 600 035, bounded on the North by land belonging to lessor, South by leasehold land belonging to K.Prakash, East by land belonging to lessor and West by leasehold land belonging to K.A.Chakravarthy measuring about 2467 sq.ft. in the premises and 354 sq.ft. of building site;
(g) By a deed of transfer of lease dated 30.01.1997, registered as Document No.1798 of 1997 in the office of the District Registrar of Madras South (actually presented for registration on 17.4.1997 and not on 30.01.1997), Sethuraman Thiayagarajan Engineers Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the company in liquidation, transferred their leasehold rights in the land of the extent of 354 sq.ft., created by the lease deed dated 30.3.1990, in favour of
Kerala State Electricity Board v. T.P.Kunhaliumma
Karnataka Steel & Wire Products v. Kohinoor Rolling Shutters and Engineering Works
N. Subramania Iyer v. Official Receiver Quilon & Anr.
K.J. Nathan v. S.V.Maruthi Rao & Others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.