ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)

1 The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the Company Court in Company Application No.48 of 2019 dated 01.04.022 and, therefore, the appellant seeks to prefer this appeal under section 483 of the Companies Act.

2 The few facts leading to the present OJA brief are as follows:

2.1 Respondent No.2 claims that it has entered into lease deed with the management of Ramakrishna Mills, which was ordered to be wound up in 1989. According to respondent No.2, term of the lease deed had expired in the year 1978 and the order of winding up was passed on 11.04.1989. No application had been filed seeking the possession. It is averred that respondent No.2 managed to get the mutation entry in the revenue record wherein name of Ramakrishna Mills Ltd. had been entered into the revenue records. This had been challenged by the Official Liquidator, respondent No.1, by preferring the OLR. The Court had not approved this action of the revenue authority and directed the Revenue Authority to enter the name of the Official Liquidator for and on behalf of Ramakrishna Mills Ltd.

2.2 Respondent No.2 preferred OJ Appeal against the said order and the same had been dismissed. Respondent No.2 preferred the company application seeking permission under section 446 of the Companies Act where also it could not satisfy the Company Court and withdrew the application with a liberty to file a fresh application. Serious grievance on the part of Textile Labour Association (“TLA” for short) is that respondent No.2 did not implead the TLA as the party and the secured creditor, Central Bank of India in Company Application No.18 of 2019 to implead it as party in Company Application No.48 of 2019. However, such an application has not been heard till date and the Company Court has allowed the Company Application by its order dated 01.04.2022. Serious grievance is on the findings and observation of the Court that the land in question is admittedly of the ownership of the Waqf Trust and the Waqf Board has got the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any dispute with regard to Waqf property as per the provisions of the Waqf Act,1995.

2.3 The factum of delay also favours the Official Liquidator because respondent No.2 initiated the proceedings for acquiring the possession of the land, which belongs to respondent No.3 after 30 years of winding up. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following authorities.

(1) M/s. J.K. (Bombay) Private Ltd. vs. M/s. New Kaiser-I-Hind Spining and Weaving Co.

Ltd. and others, AIR 1970 SCC 1041.

(2) State Bank of India vs. Official Liquidator of Commercial Ahmedabad Mills Co. and others, 2009(1) GLR 420.

(3) Legal Heirs of Deceased Fakir Chand Ambaram Patel vs. OL of Amruta Mills Limited, Laws (GJH) 2002 7 114.

2.4 Ms.Parinda Davawala, learned advocate appearing for the Opponent No.1-Official Liquidator of Ramkrishna Mills Ltd. has urged that ex post facto the permission is impermissible. It does not contemplate the grant of such permission. The deed of assignment, according to her, is dated 27.07.1948, which was executed in favour of Ramakrishna Mills Ltd. and the period of the same expired on 12.11.1976. Application of the year 2009 is to remove the Mill’s name. Company Petition No.57 of 1988 was preferred for winding up on 11.04.1989. The Division Bench also has dismissed OJA No49 of 2015. After 25.04.1998 after a span 30 years in the year 2019, Waqf application has been moved. This winding up was on 25.04.1998. She has relied upon the following authorities:

(1) Bhanwar Lal and another vs. Rajasthan Board of Muslim Waqf and others, (2014) 16 SCC 51.

(2) Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) through Lrs. vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Waqf, (2010) 8 SCC

726.

(3) Samgamesh Printing Press vs. Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Development Board, (1999) 6 SCC 44.

3 Per contra, learned advocate for respondent No.2 has urged that the ownership of the land can never be continued and the relationship of the l