* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on : 07 May 2024 Judgment pronounced on : 05 July 2024 + CO.PET. 292/2004 PACIFIC CONVERGENCE CORPN LTD. ......Petitioner Through: Mr. Y.P.Narula, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhay Narula, Advocate for Canara Bank.

versus DATA ACCESS (INDIA) LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr.

Advocate with Ms. Riya Kumar, Ms. Pallavi Shali, Ms. Shambhavi Mishra and Mr. Sumer Dev Seth, Advocates for SMS Textiles.

Mr. D. Bhattacharya, Standing Counsel for OL.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA CO.APPL. 1864/2011, CO.APPL. 3176/2016

1. The above-noted applications have been moved on behalf of the applicant – SMS Textiles Limited, under Section 446 of the Companies Act of 1956, [The Act], read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, seeking directions against the Official Liquidator to handover vacant possession of the property situated at Plot No. 43/6, Block No.E, as per the layout plan of Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II, New Delhi, measuring approximately 622.50 sq. yards (hereinafter referred to as the ‘property in question’). In CO.APPL. 3176/2016, the

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD

applicant has also sought direction to the Official Liquidator to make payment of compensation of Rs. 5 lacs per month since the date of possession of the property in question.

2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the applicant that it had purchased the property in question for a valuable consideration of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- from M/s. Jasai Exports Private Limited through its Managing Director – Mrs. Guljit SP Singh, by way of a registered Sale Deed dated 14.03.2005. Further, it is stated that the company (in liquidation) – Data Access (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘DAIL’) was a tenant of the erstwhile owner, from whom the applicant purchased the property in question. The lease deed (titled as a “License Deed”) entered into between original owner of the property in question and the company (in liquidation) is dated 02.06.1999 (Annexure A-2 in CO.APPL. 3176/2016) and extends for a maximum term of 9 years. A perusal of the same suggests that the company (in liquidation) was granted permission to use the basement and first floor of the factory premises to carry out its business activities.

3. A company petition seeking winding up was instituted against DAIL and vide order dated 26.10.2004, a Provisional Liquidator was attached to the company, and thereafter, vide a detailed order dated 18.11.2005, the company was ordered to be finally wound up and the Official Liquidator was appointed as its Liquidator, with the direction to take charge of the assets and effects of the company. In doing so, the Official Liquidator also took possession of the property in question and sealed the premises on the basis of the fact that the movables and records of the company were in the premises.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD

4. Reply dated 21.05.2012 has been filed on behalf of the Official Liquidator wherein it is stated that the averments made in the application cannot be substantiated in the absence of original documents being placed on the record. It has further been contended therein that the Official Liquidator is not liable to pay any compensation/rent/user charges in respect of the property in question.

5. A reply has also been filed on behalf of Canara Bank, a secured creditor of the company (in liquidation), wherein it is contented that the present application is not maintainable as it is not supported by any documents, and that the lease/license deed dated 02.06.1999 relating to the property in question is not a registered document, and therefore, cannot be relied upon. It is further stated therein that the applicant has no locus standi in the present matter as the applicant is not the original owner of the property in question, with whom the company (in liquidation) entered into the concerned lease/license deed. In this regard, it is stated that the