Calcutta High Court
Bharat Process & Mechanicals ... vs Re: T.P.G. Equity Management Pvt. Ltd on 6 July, 2018
Author: I. P. Mukerji
Bench: I. P. Mukerji
CA No. 400 of 2013
with
BIFR No. 520 of 1992
CA No. 409 of 2014
CA No. 524 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
In the matter of:
Bharat Process & Mechanicals Engineering Ltd. (In Liqn.)
And
Re: T.P.G. Equity Management Pvt. Ltd.
Versus
Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta
Before:
The Hon'ble Justice I. P. MUKERJI
Date: 6th July 2018
Appearance:
Mrs. Lopita Banerjee, Advocate
Mr. Deeepnath Roy Chowdhury, Advocate
Ms. Shyantee Datta, Advocate
for the applicant
Mr. M. L. Singhania, Advocate
for the Union of India
Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Advocate
Mr. Sushagra Shah, Advocate
for the workers
Mrs. Ruma Sikdar, Advocate
for the O/L
Mr. Suddhasatta Banerjee, Advocate
for respondent no.2
Gora Chand Roy Choudhury, Advocate Mr. S. Roy, Advocate for OMDC Mr. Abinash Kankaria, Advocate Mr. Ganesh N. Jajodia, Advocate for Deboprasad Roy The Court: Bharat Process & Mechanical Engineering Limited (BPMEL) is in liquidation. Its assets are in the custody of the official liquidator attached to this Court. TPG Equity Management Private Limited represented by Mrs. Lopita Banerjee, learned counsel is the assignee of the secured creditor/secured creditors of this company (in liqn.). Her client has propounded a scheme (CA No. 400 of 2013) for 2 revival and running of the company. This application is opposed by one of the unions of the company, the Central Government, Orissa Mineral Development Company Limited (OMDCL) and the Government of Orissa. The applicant is supported by one of the Unions.
The case of the assignee asking for this Court's sanction to revive and run the company (in liqn.) is secondary. The foremost issue before the Court is this.
Three mines of manganese and iron ore are the bone of contention now. It is claimed by Mrs. Banerjee that these mines were leased out by the Central Government on a very long term basis to the company (in liqn.) and are the assets of the said company.
This is very seriously contested by OMDC, the Central Government and the Government of Orissa contending that those mines do not form the assets of the company (in liqn.).
There is no dispute that the lessor of these mines is the Central Government and the long term lessee is the company (in liqn.).
Learned counsel for OMDC submits that his client was through out operating these mines. This contention is denied by Mrs. Banerjee.
Now the contention is this.
The Central Government asserts that without its concurrence the lease hold rights cannot be assigned or sold to any party. Mr. Roy Choudhury for OMDC submits that only a government company has the right to operate the mines. Therefore, the application for sanction of the scheme made by Mrs. Banerjee's client should not be allowed.
This matter is pending in the list for a very long time. Two other applications are listed. The application CA No. 409 of 2014 and another application CA No. 524 of 2014 are the applications made by Mr. S. S. Banerjee's client and the workers' union for payment of wages.
List all these applications on 27th July 2018. Any pending affidavit is to be completed in the meantime. 3 Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(I. P. MUKERJI, J.) R. Bose