Delhi High Court
Shri S.K. Verma vs Official Liquidator, Pioneer ... on 21 April, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2005)5COMPLJ260(DEL), 119(2005)DLT620, 2005(82)DRJ477
Author: A.K. Sikri
Bench: A.K. Sikri
JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J.
1. Company Petition NO. 123 of 1989 was filed by Mr. S.K. Verma under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act. In this petition Mr. Verma has stated that he is the shareholder of the Pioneer Consolidated Co. of India Ltd. (in liquidation) (hereinafter called `the company'). This company was incorporated on June 23,1939 under the Companies Act, 1913. Another company, namely, Indian Turpentine and Rosin Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the `ITRC') filed a petition C.P. NO. 107/1981 in this court under Section 433(e) and 433(f) read with Section 439 of the Companies Act seeking winding up of the company on the ground that the company owed ITRC a sum of Rs. 43,57,198.31p as on 31.8.1980. The said petition was admitted and citations were ordered to be published for 6.5.1982. This order was taken in appeal and certain orders passed. However, without going into the details of further litigation, suffice it to note here that the company was ordered to be wound up by this court on 11.12.1985 and the Official Liquidator was directed to take charge of the assets and account books and documents of the company. This order was unsuccessfully challenged before the Division Bench of this court as well as in Supreme Court.
2. During the liquidation proceedings, present petition was filed in the year 1989 proposing Scheme of Compromise and Arrangement with the creditors and the members by Shri S.K. Verma, one of the shareholders. The purpose of the Scheme is stated to be (1) to take the company out of liquidation (2) to revive the functioning of the company and (3) to pay off all the creditors of the company. The transformation that would take place upon the sanctioning of the Scheme is stated in para-14 of the petition with the following description:
"(a) The winding up order passed on 11.12.85 in company petition NO. 107/1981 shall be stayed;
(b) The present Directors of the Company shall cease to be the directors of the company with effect from the date of the order sanctioning the scheme;
(c) That the persons nominated by the applicant will be Sh. R.C. Goenka, Vikram Srivastava, Vijay Srivastava and Govindam M. Kedia shall become Directors of the company with effect from the date of the sanctioning of the scheme.
(d)the entire shareholding shall be transferred within 7 (seven) days of the date of the order of sanctioning the scheme to the persons nominated by the applicant."
3. Notice of this petition was directed to be issued to the Central Government as well as Official Liquidator on 26.5.1989 inviting their response to the proposed scheme. The Official Liquidator filed his reply dated 5.10.1989. This one page reply contained four preliminary objections , namely:
"1. That the scheme lacks material particulars and is vague and therefore liable to be rejected.
2. That the petitioner have not disclosed the source of funds from which these expenses would be met.
3. That the petitioner may be made to file proof showing the financial soundness of the propounder of scheme and the investors.
4. That the official liquidator reserves his right to file a detailed reply after the meeting of creditors and shareholders is held and as and when the above information is furnished and after scrutinizing various documents filed by the petitioner in respect of the scheme."
4. The affidavit of Regional Director (Northern Region) Company Law Board, Kanpur has also been filed expressing doubts over the capacity and competence of the propounder to carry out the scheme pointing out that this court had earlier passed orders in CA. 1474/86 in CP. 107/81 directing for deposit of Rs. 10 lacs in cash and bank guarantee of Rs. 12 lacs which were not fulfillled by the same petitioners who are propounder of the present scheme as well. It was also mentioned in the said reply dated 8.2.90 that the scheme is vague and appears to be a device to supersede the earlier order dated 11.12.1985 for deposit of the amount. M/s. Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called the `the Objector'), who are the owners of the premises where the Registered Office of the company (in liquidation) was situated, entered appearance on 5.10.1989 through their counsel and submitted that they also wanted to file objections to the proposed scheme of arrangement. This permission was granted and the objector also filed its objections.
5. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of these proceedings when arguments were heard on different dates and certain orders were passed from time to time, ITRC settled the claim for a sum of Rs. 7,88,000/- against its claim of Rs. 43 lakhs and assigned its debts in favor of Shri J.P. Srivastava and Associates Trading Pvt. Ltd. Thus this company stepped into the shoes of ITRC i.e. the petitioner. However, before final orders could be passed on the Scheme filed by Shri S.K. Verma, he died and on 4.2.2000 learned counsel for the Official Liquidator contended that because of his death the Scheme of Compromise/Arrangement propounded by him did not survive. However, counsel for the petitioner (J.P. Srivastava) took time to file an application for substitution which was opposed by the Objector on the ground that no such substitution was permissible. The court remarked that this objection would be considered if and when such an application is brought on record. CA. 904/2001 is filed seeking substitution. This application is filed by J.P. Srivastava and Associates Trading Pvt. Ltd., inter alia, stating that this applicant is one of the creditors and also shareholder of the company who has already made payment to the main creditors i.e. ITRC and has become creditor of the company as well. It is also stated that he is the creditor of the company with an entitlement to recover the amount exceeding 75% of the total liability owed by the company to its creditors. Its shareholding is also more than 80%. It is also stated that Shri S.K. Verma was a single person having no wife or children and, therefore, he did not leave behind any direct surviving descendant as a legal representative; scheme proposed by Shri S.K. Verma is meant for the benefit of the entire body of creditors and shareholders of the company; the applicant is ready and willing to act in furtherance of the proposed scheme and to abide by and implement in toto the scheme of arrangement proposed by Shri S.K. Verma. Substitution is sought on the aforementioned averments made in the application. As was expected, the Objector has filed its reply to this application, inter alia, pleading that the applicant has no right to be substituted in place of Shri S.K. Verma in these proceedings.
6. It is clear from the sequence of events narrated up to this stage that the main players who have emerged on the scene, apart from company (in liquidation), are Shri S.K. Verma (although who is no longer alive), ITRC, J.P. Srivastava and Associates Trading Pvt. Ltd. and Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. There may be some other creditors of the company though they have not surfaced. It would be appropriate to take note of the credentials of these parties in order to have wholistic view of the matter:
The Company:
It was doing business, inter alia, of selling agents and of clearing house agents in Bombay and Calcutta and was holding the customs clearance license for Bombay and Calcutta Ports. Winding up petition NO. 107/1981 was filed against this company by ITRC on the ground that company owed ITRC a sum of Rs. 43,57,198.31p as on 31.8.1980. Order dated 17.3.1982 was passed by the Company Judge in the said petition directing the company to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs in cash and Bank Guarantee of Rs. 10 lakhs. An appear was filed against this order and Division Bench directed the company to deposit only Rs. 2 lakhs. SLP was filed wherein Supreme Court passed order dated 3.3.1983 directing the company to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs in stead of Rs. 2 lakhs. When this amount was not deposited in spite of various extensions granted by the Supreme Court, it restored the order of Company Judge setting aside the order of the Division Bench. On remitting the case back to the Company Judge, the Company Judge passed order dated 15.3.198 directing the company to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs in court and Bank Guarantee of Rs. 12 lakhs. Appeal against this order was dismissed by the Division Bench. Final winding up order was passed on 11.12.1985. On 29.5.1986 CA. 1474 of 86 was filed under Section 391 of the Companies Act proposing Scheme of Revival. This was filed by Harishankar Shrivastava, father of Vikram Shrivastava alleging that he holds 15 shares. In this application meeting of the creditors was directed to be convened. However, on 18.(sic).86 in that meeting the creditors rejected this scheme.
It may be noted that the company was tenant of 5, Scindia House, which premises are owned by the Objector (Atma Ram Properties (P)Ltd.) and the possession of the premises was taken over by the Official Liquidator on passing winding up order. The liquidation proceedings, after the winding up orders, have not progressed as present scheme of arrangement/settlement is pending consideration and there are interim orders restraining the Official Liquidator from disposing of the assets of the company.
S.K. Verma:
He filed, as a shareholder, present petition i.e. C.P.123/89. The brief account of the Scheme has already been given. The Regional Director as well as Official Liquidator has termed the Scheme as vague. However, during the pendency of this Scheme, one development which took place was the settlement of the debt of ITRC for Rs. 7,88,000/- and assignment of this debt by ITRC to Shri J.P. Srivastava and Associates Trading Pvt. Ltd. Other development, most significant at that time, is the death of Shri S.K. Verma.
ITRC:
ITRC as well as the company at one time belonged to the same group of companies, namely, J.P. Srivastava Group of Companies. Though both the companies were sister concern of J.P. Srivastava Group of Companies. ITRC was subsequently taken over by U.P. State Government. At its instance winding up orders of the company were passed. It has, however, settled the dues with the company and has assigned the debt to Shri J.P. Srivastava and Associates Trading Pvt. Ltd. It is, therefore, no more interested in these proceedings.
Shri J.P. Srivasatava and Associates Trading Pvt. Ltd.
As noted above, the company was its sister concern. It has now taken over the debt of ITRC and is thus a creditor of the company. On the death of Shri S.K. Verma, it has filed the application CA. 904/2001 seeking substitution. The Official Liquidator filed the reply dated 5.10.1989 in which preliminary objection was taken that the scheme lacks material particulars and is vague. The affidavit of Regional Director (Northern Region) Company Law Board, Kanpur has also been filed on 8.2.90 expressing doubts over the capacity and competence of the propounder to carry out the scheme. Thereafter another reply/amended reply dated 26.2.90 was filed wherein the Official Liquidator has doubted the bona fides of the applicant as well as scheme propounded by i. It may be noted that on 7.5.91 Vikram Srivastava had filed an affidavit as one of the propounders of the Scheme, inter alia, stating that he was Executive Director of Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd with holding company i.e. J.P. Srivastava and Associates Trading Pvt. Ltd. and has various personal resources besides the companies controlled by him which he can individually or otherwise raise and invest in the company (in liquidation).
M/s. Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd.
It is the owner of 5, Scindia House which were leased out to the company (in liquidation) and is the main Objector to the Scheme. This landlord filed CA. 61/88 in one of the proceedings which was disposed of vide order dated 23.5.88 by the Company Judge refusing to deliver the premises back to the owner. However, liberty was given to the Objector to move again after CA. 1474/86 (scheme propounded by Harishanker Shrivastava) was decided. The Objector filed appeal 21/88 against this order which was allowed on 30.11.90 directing that possession be delivered back to the Objector subject to some undertaking. It may be noted that during the pendency of this appeal, the Objector filed an application under Section 446 of the Companies Act seeking leave to file an eviction petition against the company. Leave was granted on 8.8.88. On the basis of this, the Objector filed eviction petition in the year 1989 on the ground of default in payment of rent for the period from 1.3.85 to 28.2.89. CA. 7616/89 was also filed in the company proceedings for delivery of possession. However, thereafter, as noted above, on 30.11.90 order was passed by the Division Bench in Appeal 21/88 directing the possession of premises being given to the Objector.
7. In the eviction petition filed by the Objector before the Additional Rent Controller, order dated 4.2.91 was passed under Section 15(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act for payment of rent. However, the company did not deposit the rent in terms of the order and thereafter on 8.3.1991 eviction orders were also passed by the Additional Rent Controller under Section 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act. The Objector thereafter filed an application for leave to execute this eviction order. Thus the Objector is rimed with an order of eviction passed by the Additional Rent Controller. The Objector claims that since rents are not paid, it is also a creditor. The Scheme propounded in the company petition is opposed on the ground that it is a mala fide Scheme with sole intention to retain the premises belonging to the Objector. Otherwise there is no intention to do any business and even the license given by customs expired long ago and the company does not hold any valid license. It is also the grievance of the objector that its name does not even figure in the list of creditors filed in the proposed Scheme. Likewise it is also opposing the prayer of the Shri J.P. Srivastava and Associates Trading Pvt. Ltd. for substitution in place of S.K. Verma.
8. The Scheme Before going into various allied issues, it would be appropriate to discuss the central theme of the matter, namely, the Scheme in order to find out as to whether the Scheme is bona fide, workable and deserves to be given a green signal. Other allied issues which are raised are dependent on this central issue.
9. As noted above, both the Official Liquidator and Regional Director have opposed the Scheme dubbing it as not only vague and lacking in material particulars but mala fide as well. A very important aspect which needs to be mentioned is that while this petition is pending for all these years, no direction is given for holding meeting of creditors and members of the company so far inasmuch as this Court wanted to be satisfied about the genuineness and the workability of the Scheme before passing such an order. It is because of this reason, notices in the first instance were issued to the Official Liquidator as well as Central Government through Regional Director eliciting their response. This would become more obvious from the order dated 29.7.91 passed in these proceedings by the then Company Judge and it would be of benefit to reproduce the said order in its entirety:
"This application has been filed under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act seeking directions for holding of meetings of creditors and members of the Company M/s. Pioneer Consolidated Company of India to consider the Scheme of arrangement annexed to the application. I have heard learned counsel for the parties for some time. Before considering this application further, it would be necessary to have certain further information from the propounder of the scheme as the scheme does not set out precisely the complete liabilities of the company nor does it set out the amounts which would be financed by the propounder. It only states that upon the scheme being sanctioned by the Court, for the implementation of the scheme, Shri Vikram Kishan Sirivastava an Associates and M/s. Gwalior Sugar company shall provide necessary finance by way of investment. The application purports to bear the signatures of Shri Vikram Kishan Sirivastava, as constituted attorney of Shri S.K. Verma who is the applicant. The applicant is directed to place on record within one week attested copy of the power of attorney in favor of Shri Vikram Kishan Sirivastava, which may have been executed by Shri S.K. Verma. The applicant shall also within the period of one week file the following documents as also affidavit on the points noticed hereinunder:-
"1. The balance sheet in regard to the period prior to the order of winding up.
2.How does it is proposed to carry on the business in case of the scheme being sanctioned.
3.The nature of the business which was being conducted by the company.
4.The amount of finance which will be required to carry on the business of the company on the scheme being sanctioned.
5.The amount due to preferential/statutory creditors and workers.
6.The time required to deposit at least Rs. 15/- lakhs to show that bona fides of the scheme.
It may be noticed that during the course of hearing of arguments, counsel for the propounder submitted that the propounders are prepared to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs to show their bona-fides hat they are ready topay to all the creditors in full though by way of Installments.
Copies of the documents and affidavit shall be given to counsel present in the Court. For further hearing, adjourned to 22nd August, 1991."
10. Directions contained in this order have not been complied with. It may also be noted that when the matter was heard on subsequent hearings, the Court wanted to ascertain the financial position of the company in the year 1985 as per the record available with the Official Liquidator. Order dated 13.10.1992 accordingly was passed. The Official Liquidator thereafter filed on 3.11.1992 documents, namely, a copy of the statement of affairs, and the copies of the balance sheets for the years 1979-81. As per the statement of affairs, there were various other creditors (apart from ITRC) as well as debtors. When this matter came up for hearing on 29.4.1998, after taking note of the contention of the Objector to the effect that the Scheme for revival of the company (in liquidation) is meant only for the purpose of grabbing the property of the objector and in order to test the veracity of this allegation, the petitioner was directed to furnish the following information:
"1. What is the amount which has been paid to the ITRC towards settlement of its claim.
2.Who are the other creditors apart from ITRC.
3.What is the amount due to the other creditors besides ITRC.
4.Who are the landlords of properties which were in the occupation of the company in liquidation while it was doing business at Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi, besides the property of Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd.
5.What are the areas of the properties and the market rent as of today. "
11. The petitioner was directed to file an affidavit giving this information and the Official Liquidator was also directed to give details on the aforesaid points. In the response filed by the Official Liquidator, he stated that he did not know the amount paid to ITRC towards settlement which information be supplied by the propounder of the Scheme; as per balance-sheet as on 31.3.1981 total sundry creditors to the extent of Rs. 43,35,414; list of other creditors besides ITRC was filed; besides property leased out by the Objector, no other details of ownership of the property at Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi were available with the Official Liquidator. Mr. Vikram Shrivastava also filed affidavit thereafter on 2.2.99 stating that ITRC had received an amount of Rs. 7,88,000/- from Shri J.P. Srivastava and Associates Trading Pvt. Ltd. In this affidavit Annexure-B was the list of creditors of the petitioner company as per which there are 73 creditors as on 31.3.1981 for a total amount of Rs. 3,98,808.62p of Delhi Office, 35 creditors of Bombay Office for total sum of Rs. 1,95,970.58, 35 creditors of Calcutta Office for a total amount of Rs. 1,95,970.58p and 49 creditors of Kanpur Office for a total sum of Rs. 4,91,977.44p.
12. It would be apposite to note at this stage that the company was having two business activities (1) Sole selling agents of ITRC and (2) customs clearance agent pursuant to customs house agent for clearing goods at Calcutta and Bombay docks. Sole selling agency came to an end in 1979 because of disputes between the company and the ITRC as per which ITRC was to recover a sum of Rs. 43,57,198.31p for which it even filed winding up petition viz. CP. 107/81. Rest is the history. So far as customs agent business is concerned, it was shown to have been carried on till 1980-81 and resulted in losses to the tune of 9.55 lakhs, where after this business activity also stood abandoned. When the winding up orders were passed, there was no business activity for more than 12 years. In the winding up order dated 11.12.1985 this aspect is commented upon by the Company Judge. It may be of interest to note that same propounder i.e. Vikram Shrivastava and this J.P. Srivastava Group had opposed the winding up on the ground that they were in a position to revive the company. This plea of theirs was also not accepted and the relevant discussion is contained in the following portion of the said judgment:
"In response to the publication of citation, certain parties have filed affidavits opposing the winding up of the company. There are the Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. , Sri Vikram Srivastava, Raza Textiles Ltd. , Jwala Fabrics Ltd. and Sir J.P. Srivastava and sons (MB) P. Ltd. claiming to be creditors of the PCC to the extent respectively, of Rs. 5,09,162.84, Rs. 10,100/-, Rs. 9,43,161.39, Rs. 35,000/- and Rs. 42,210/-. Broadly summarised, these affidavits concede that the current assets of the PCC are meagr and are not sufficient to enable the payment of even a fractional share of the amounts due to various creditors. However, winding up is opposed on th ground that the claims of the ITR are inflated and unreasonable and that the only salvation for the creditors is to give the PCC an opportunity to re-vive and restabilise itself so that, from, the monies earned, the creditors' claims can be satisfied. The most detailed of the affidavits is that of Gwalior Sugar Co. and its contents may be briefly referred to. The major part of the affidavit is devoted to a criticism of the ITR's accounts, claim and stand in the present proceedings and the only indication given of the respondent's potentiality for future development is that the respondent company "has an extremely valuable asset in the form of a special custom house agent's license" for clearing goods at the Bombay and Calcutta docks and also possesses a valuable asset in the form of tenancy rights at a low rent of three premises, one in Delhi, one in Bombay and one in Calcutta. It is suggested that "with better management and utilisation of internal and external resources", the company "can very easily rehabilitate itself and thereafter run efficiently and profitable". The other affidavit are not so detailed but, more or less, tow the same line.
13. The record does not contain the details of the debt alleged to be due from PCC to Gwalior Sugar Co. as Annexure 'A' to the affidavit filed by this party is not on record. So also, the reply to this affidavit said to have been filed by the petitioner company is also not on record. But from para 18 of the affidavit, it is seen that the PCC has not been able to meet its staff and running expenses and a substantial part thereof since 1980 is being met by the Gwalior Sugar Co. So far as Vikram Srivastav is concerned, the debt alleged to be due to him is a sum of Rs. 10,100/- claimed to have been advanced by him in cash since June 1984 i.e., after the date of appointment of the provisional liquidator. Similar is the position in the case of Shrivastava and Sons Ltd. The affidavit on behalf of the Raza Textile Co. has been filed by one of the Srivastavas and it is seen that this company has been defraying the expenses of PCC towards staff and running expenses. It also claims a sum of Rs. 25,000/- said have been advanced towards allocation of shares. Jwala Fabrics has also filed likewise an affidavit of opposition through Sri V.K. Srivastava and its claim is for a sum of Rs. 35,000/- said to have been advanced towards purchase of equity shares. But these two advances have been made after and with the knowledge of the failing of the present winding up petition. A perusal of these affidavits confirms the fact that the PCC has been in a bad financial position since 1980. The opposition is coming from persons belonging to the group of management of the PCC and are clearly motivated. Their desire to help the PCC is no doubt understandable but they do not come forward with any concrete proposal for the revival of the company and its financial recons ruction, particularly after the termination of its agency for the ITR. It rather seems to be an attempt on their part, as alleged by the petitioner, to utilise the staff and tenanted premises available to PCC at various places to their own advantage as they seem to have been doing for the past few years. The agency business said to have been started is of a very small magnitude and has resulted in loss, the accumulated amount of which as at the end of 1980-81 was Rs. 9.55 lakhs. No balance sheet in respect of this business has been filed after 1980-81. Indeed the affidavits in opposition do not give any figures or details to substantiate the confidence that the company's prospects are bright or brilliant. These are merely affidavits by interested persons and their opposition to the winding up cannot be given any weight.
14. Perusal of the scheme clearly indicates that even now no concrete proposal has been filed. In the opposition filed by the Official Liquidator, it is, inter alia, contended that Shri S.K. Verma is the holder of one single share and is none other but a stooge in the hands of the Srivastava Group who had filed a Scheme bearing NO. CA. 1474/86 in CP. 107/81 which was rejected by this court. It is also stated that it was the same Srivastava Group who had also opposed the winding up petition and this court had remarked that "such opposition is clearly motivated by persons who themselves form the management of the company". Apart from doubting the bona fides of the Propounder and the Srivastava Group, the Official Liquidator in his objection has also state as under:
" The Scheme lacks in all material particulars, it is vague and without any financial viability; it does not disclose how and in what manner does the propounder want to pay the creditors/members of the company. Admittedly the propounder has stated that he has to pay creditors a sum of Rs. 43,33,203.72.
But he does not at any place disclose how these financial liabilities are going to be met with.
In fact the discrepancies appear on the face of the Scheme and are prima facie discernible.
At page 9 of the Scheme (C ) the Propounder has mentioned that no meeting of the Preferencial creditors/secured creditors need be held as there are none where as at Annexure `B' filed along with the Scheme at page 3(iii)(a) he says that the full amount payable to the preferential creditors shall be paid in the 2 months from the date of the sanctioning of the Scheme this controversial stand appears to be un-explanable and only with the intention to mislead the Hon'ble Court."
15. Interestingly although in the Scheme it was mentioned that no meeting of the preferential creditors/secured creditors is required to be held as there are no secured creditors, in the affidavit dated 2.2.99 filed by Shri Vikram Shrivastava, on the direction of this court , note of which is already taken above, list of creditors is filed as Annexure-B as per which there are approximately 200 creditors. This itself would show that Scheme originally filed contains mis-representation about the existing creditors and further no details are given as to how these creditors would be paid off. Obviously there could not have been any such provision as in the petition false averment was made that there are no creditors at all. Another aspect which is required to be noted is that in CA. 904/2001 now filed by J.P. Srivastava and Associates Trading Pvt. Ltd. it is stated that the applicant is a creditor with value of more than 75% and it is also a shareholder having more than 80% shares. Thus the same very Group whose move to oppose winding up was rejected and, thereafter whose attempt to seek revival failed, now wants to come forward as a self serving creditor and shareholder and wants to bind all other creditors and shareholders by claiming that it represents more than -+ value of creditors.
16. It is clear that the aforesaid discussion would bring the following aspects upfront:
A. There was no business activity of the company even at the time of winding up and as it was not having any agency nor there is any chance to have sole selling agency of ITRC, it cannot do said business. Insofar as business of custom house agency is concerned, it is not having any license from the customs.
B. Shri S.K. Verma only acted as a stooge of Srivastava Group by filing CP. NO. 123/89. This petition was filed in his name by Srivastava Group as also application CA. 1474/86 in CP. 107/81 filed by Srivastava Group was rejected by this court.
C. The Scheme lacks all necessary details and particulars, as pointed out by the Regional Director as well as Official Liquidator.
D. Significant information which was sought vide order dated 29.7.1991 has not been supplied. This information includes queries raised therein including eliciting information as to how it is proposed to carry out business in case the Scheme is sanctioned nature of business; the amount of finance that is required to carry on the scheme being sanctioned. Obvious in the absence of this information the Scheme is a non-starter.
E. That apart, allegation of the Objector stares at the face of the propounder as well as applicant in CA. 904/2001 that the entire attempt is to grab its property. It may be mentioned that even the Official Liquidator has, in his reply, raised same very apprehension, namely, device of Srivastava Group to take possession of tenanted premises of the company (in liquidation) at various places. Be that as it may, there is an order of eviction passed by the Additional Rent Controller in its favor. Therefore, insofar as Objector is concerned, it is possessed of an eviction order . This order is not executed only because application for permission to execute this order is kept pending because of the these proceedings.
17. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is to hold that neither the Scheme propounded by S.K. Verma and/or proposed substitute, namely, Srivastava Group is bona fide nor viable and lacks material particulars as well. It is in fact not a valid Scheme in the eyes of law as it does not deal with all the aspects and dimensions required for the revival of a company. C.P. 123/1989 is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of the petition, CA. 904/2001 does not survive and the necessary consequence is to dismiss this application as well.
CA. 258/91 and CA. 7616/89.
18. As the scheme seeking revival of the company fails and the winding up order remains unaltered, the Official Liquidator shall de-seal the premises, i.e. 5, Scindia House, which belong to the Objector (Atma Ram Properties (P)Ltd.) as it is clear that the premises are not required by the Official Liquidator for the liquidation proceedings.
19. These applications are disposed of accordingly.