Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Seepz Sez Authority Through Estate ... vs Core Education And Technologies Ltd. ... on 18 January, 2023

Author: N. J. Jamadar

Bench: N. J. Jamadar

                                                  30-IAL5547-2020CP641-2014.DOC

                                                                                 Santosh
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION


             INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 5547 OF 2020
                               IN
                COMPANY PETITION NO. 641 OF 2014

SEEPZ SEZ Authority                                                    ...Applicant
                  Versus
Core Education and Technologies Ltd.
(under Liquidation) & anr.                                        ...Respondents
In the matter between
Wipro Ltd.                                                             ...Petitioner
                  Versus
Core Education and Technologies Ltd.                                ...Respondent

Mr. M. S. Bharadwaj, for the Applicant.
Mr. Shanay Shah, for the Respondents/Official Liquidator.
Mr. Shatrughan Chauhan, Dy. Official Liquidator, present.

                                            CORAM:       N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                            DATED :      18th JANUARY, 2023
Oral Order:-

1.     SEEPZ         SEZ        Authority    has     taken     out     this      interim

application seeking the possession of the premises being Unit

No.403, SEEPZ SEZ, MIDC Area, Andheri (E), Mumbai, which is

in the possession of the Official Liquidator.

2.     The said premises was allotted to M/s. Core Education

and Technologies Ltd., respondent No.1, in respect of which a

winding up order came to be passed on 30th October, 2017 in

Company Petition No.641 of 2014 and connected petitions.



                                            1/4


 ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2023                           ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2023 07:43:03 :::
                                       30-IAL5547-2020CP641-2014.DOC

3.     The applicant claims that the subject premises was

allotted to Company (in liquidation) in accordance with the

terms and conditions incorporated in the allotment letter dated

3rd February, 2010. A Sub-lease Agreement came to be executed

on 30th November, 2011. Pursuant to the winding up order dated

30th October, 2017, the Official Liquidator took possession of the

subject premises on 8th January, 2018.

4.     As the Company (in liquidation) committed default in

payment of the amount which fell due in accordance with the

Sub-lease Agreement and the letter of allotment, recovery

proceedings under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of

Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 have been initiated against

the Company (in liquidation). In the circumstances, SEEPZ is

entitled to resume the possession of the subject premises.

5.     From the perusal of the allotment order dated 18 th

January, 2010 and the sub-lease executed on 30th November,

2011, it becomes evident that the applicant had received a

consideration of Rs.3,96,58,200/- as cost of the unit and

various facilities and concessions made available to the sub-

lessee - the Company (in liquidation).

6.     The learned Counsel for the applicant, on instructions,

made a statement that as of date a sum of Rs.47,49,022.04 is

                                2/4


 ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2023               ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2023 07:43:03 :::
                                       30-IAL5547-2020CP641-2014.DOC

due and payable by the Company (in liquidation) to the

applicant. The latter is willing to refund the amount deposited

by the Company (in liquidation) after deducting the said amount

of Rs.47,49,022.04, if the Official Liquidator delivers the

possession of the subject premises.

7.     It is imperative to note that the subject premises is

situated in a special economic zone. There is no possibility of

revival of the business of the Company (in liquidation). At best,

the leasehold rights of the Company (in liquidation) in the

subject premises subsist.        In the circumstances as the

applicant claims that it is entitled to resume the possession of

the subject premises, the Official Liquidator is agreeable to the

resolution of the dispute by accepting a sum of Rs.3,49,09,177/-

(after deducting the amount of Rs.47,49,023/- towards the dues

of the applicant).

8.     In the totality of the circumstances, the said composition

seems to be in the interest of the Creditors and other

stakeholders of the Company (in liquidation) as the leasehold

rights cannot be monetized without the consent of the

applicant.

9.     The Court has considered the valuation report in respect

of the movables of which the fare market value is shown

                                3/4


 ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2023               ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2023 07:43:03 :::
                                                30-IAL5547-2020CP641-2014.DOC

Rs.3,12,500/-. The value of movable assets is thus minuscule in

comparison to the amount to be refunded by the applicant.

10.    Hence, the following order.

                                    :ORDER:

The application stands disposed with the following directions:

(a) The applicant shall refund the amount of Rs.3,49,09,177/-, to the Official Liquidator within a period of four weeks.
(b) Within three working days of the receipt of the said amount of Rs.3,49,09,177/-, the Official Liquidator shall hand over the possession of the subject premises, including the movables, on "as is whereas basis", to the applicant.
(c) The Official Liquidator or the Company (in liquidation) shall not be further prosecuted under the Public Premises Eviction Act.

Valuation report is re-sealed.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 4/4 ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2023 07:43:03 :::