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 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Carnation Distributors Pvt. Ltd vs The Official Liquidator & Anr on 13 November, 2017

Author: Sanjib Banerjee

Bench: Sanjib Banerjee, Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

OD-4
                               ACO No. 115 of 2017
                               APO No. 500 of 2017
                                        in
                                CP No. 355 of 1997

                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                          Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
                                ORIGINAL SIDE


                     CARNATION DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.
                                    VS
                      THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR & ANR.


 BEFORE:

 The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
               And
 The Hon'ble JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA

 Date : November 13, 2017
                                                                           Appearance
                                                               Ms. Manju Agarwal, Adv.
                                                                    Mr. B. Manot, Adv.

                                                                  Mr. P.C. Sen, Sr.   Adv.
                                                                      Mr. R.R. Sen,   Adv.
                                                                    Mr. K. Mondal,    Adv.
                                                                Mr. A. Dasadhikari,   Adv.
                                                                      Mr. N.K. Roy,   Adv.

                                                                Mrs. Ruma Sikdar, Adv.

                                                                   Mr. S.C. Prasad, Adv.


        The Court : The appeal is directed against an ad interim order on a stranger's

 application in liquidation proceedings pertaining to the Gouripur Company Limited (in

 liquidation).

        According to the applicant before the trial Court, which is the second

 respondent in the present appeal, the applicant has been running a school for more

than 25 years and, from or about 1997, the first respondent herein has been in 2 possession of a part of the land of the company in liquidation measuring about 2.5 bigha. The application before the company Court is for such part of the land which is in possession of the second respondent herein to be kept out of the purview of the sale of the company's assets by the official liquidator.

By the order impugned dated October 24, 2017, the company Court appointed a special officer to inspect the premises with the aid of a valuer and a surveyor. Directions were also issued for all concerned to make representations before the special officer and for the special officer to file a report.

It is, however, submitted by both the second respondent and the official liquidator that since the special officer named in the order impugned is indisposed, he has not been able to undertake any work.

There is an element of discretion which is available to the company Court and it does not appear that the order impugned warrants any interference at this stage. What is of paramount importance is that the company gets value for its assets. If the school has encroached on the company's property and makes a clean breast of things, it is open to the company Judge to allow the school to continue in occupation of the encroached area, subject to the present market price being paid therefor and subject to occupation charges being obtained from the relevant party for the period that it admits to have been in occupation of such part of the company's land. It is recorded that it has been categorically submitted on behalf of the second respondent in this Court that the second respondent has been in possession of approximately 2.5 bigha of the company's land since or about 1997.

The order impugned has not interfered with the sale pertaining to the rest of the land and other assets of the company in liquidation. Thus, the official liquidator should take expeditious steps in such regard.

3

Though some of the parties make some murmurs as to the manner of the appointment of the special officer or the terms of reference thereof, these matters should be carried to the company Court, in the event any interested party has any reservations, for the company Court to ascertain the value of the land in the possession of the second respondent and the manner of payment or compensation therefor by the second respondent.

Accordingly, APO No. 500 of 2017 and ACO No. 115 of 2017 stand disposed of. Nothing in this order or the impugned order will confer any right on the other alleged encroachers of the company's land to obtain any similar benefit. However, it will be open to the company Court to assess each case on merits and deal with the same.

There will be no order as to costs.

(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) (SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.) sg.