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]

Gujarat High Court

Rasiklal S Mardia vs Official Liquidator Of Mardia Steel ... on 2 May, 2017

Author: Abhilasha Kumari

Bench: Abhilasha Kumari

                    O/COMA/212/2015                                              ORDER




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        OFFICIAL LIQUDATOR REPORT NO. 22 of 2013
                                                In
                               COMPANY PETITION NO. 69 of 2001
                                              With
                           COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 212 of 2015
                                                In
                              COMPANY PETITION NO. 104 of 2002
                                              With
                            COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 90 of 2010
                                                In
                       OFFICIAL LIQUDATOR REPORT NO. 110 of 2007
                                              With
                        OFFICIAL LIQUDATOR REPORT NO. 78 of 2012
                                                In
                              COMPANY PETITION NO. 104 of 2002
         ==========================================================
                                 RASIKLAL S MARDIA....Applicant(s)
                                              Versus
                 OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF MARDIA STEEL LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) &
                                        1....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         PARTY-IN-PERSON, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
         MR SHALIN N MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR HEMANG M SHAH, ADVOCATE for
         the Respondent(s) No. 2
         MS AMEE YAJNIK, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         ==========================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI

                                       Date : 02/05/2017


                                        ORAL ORDER

1. Heard the Party­in­Person Mr.Rasiklal S.Mardia,  Mr.Shalin N. Mehta, learned Senior Advocate with  Page 1 of 6 HC-NIC Page 1 of 6 Created On Sat Aug 12 17:14:12 IST 2017 O/COMA/212/2015 ORDER Mr.Hemang   M.   Shah,   learned   advocate   for   the  Assets   Reconstruction   Company   (India)   Limited  ("ARCIL")   and   Ms.Amee   Yajnik,   learned   advocate  for the Official Liquidator.

2. Mr.Shalin N. Mehta, learned Senior Advocate has  submitted   that   the   details   of   the   properties  sold   by   ARCIL,   as   required   to   be   placed   on  record pursuant to the order dated 17.04.2017,  have   so   been   placed   by   way   of   an   additional  affidavit. 

3. On a query being raised by the Court how ARCIL  could   have   sold   the   properties   pending   the  proceedings, especially in view of the order of  the Division bench dated 07.11.2012 and during  the pendency of the present proceedings when the  rights of ARCIL have not been finally decided,  learned Senior Counsel has submitted that there  are   certain   orders   of   the   Court   whereby  permission   has   been   granted   to   sell   certain  properties.   However,   due   to   paucity   of   time,  those orders  could  not  be  pointed  out  and the  Court is unable to peruse those orders today. 




                                    Page 2 of 6

HC-NIC                           Page 2 of 6      Created On Sat Aug 12 17:14:12 IST 2017
                O/COMA/212/2015                                           ORDER



4. The   submission   advanced   by   the   Party­in­Person  in   this   regard   is   to   the   effect   that   the  proceeds of the properties that have been sold  after the passing of the order by the Division  Bench, be directed to deposit in the Registry of  the Court and all the said transactions be held  to be illegal and null and void. 

5. In order to examine this contention, the Court  would be required to go into complicated legal  issues as ARCIL has also resorted to proceedings  under  the  Securitisation   and   Reconstruction   of  Financial   Assets   and   Enforcement   of   Security  Interest   Act,   2002   ("the  SARFAESI   Act")  .  However, ARCIL is required to answer the query  of the  Court  as  the  properties  have been  sold  during the pendency of the present proceedings  and after the order of the Division Bench, when  the rights of ARCIL have still not been decided.  The submission of the Party­in­Person that the  sale proceeds be directed to be deposited in the  Registry   of   this   Court,   therefore,   deserves  serious consideration. 





                                    Page 3 of 6

HC-NIC                           Page 3 of 6      Created On Sat Aug 12 17:14:12 IST 2017
                O/COMA/212/2015                                            ORDER



6. Ms.Amee   Yajnik,   learned   advocate   for   the  Official   Liquidator   has   submitted   that   this  Court may  declare that  ARCIL  is  not a  Secured  Creditor. 

7. In order to decide the issues raised by learned  counsel for the Official Liquidator, the Court  would be required to go through the voluminous  record   apart   from   hearing   detailed   submissions  of parties, especially  as  it  is  stated by the  learned   Senior   Counsel   that   ARCIL   has   been  treated   as   a   Secured   Creditor   by   the   Official  Liquidator and the Party­in­Person. 

8. The above statement is denied and objected to by  the   Party­in­Person   as   well   as   by   learned  counsel   for   the   Official   Liquidator,   who   have  submitted that this statement is being made only  on the basis of the Minutes of a Meeting, which  do not confer the status of a Secured Creditor  upon   ARCIL.   The   precise   issue   raised   in   the  present   proceedings   by   the   Official   Liquidator  is   that   it   be   declared   that   ARCIL   is   not   a  Secured Creditor. 




                                     Page 4 of 6

HC-NIC                            Page 4 of 6      Created On Sat Aug 12 17:14:12 IST 2017
                O/COMA/212/2015                                           ORDER



9. The   issues   involved   in   the   petition   are  complicated   and   would   require   lengthy   hearing.  The Party­in­Person as well as other parties may  thoroughly   examine   the   record   in   order   to  prepare the matter for arguments on the basis of  the   contentions   raised   and   recorded   in   this  order, so that the core issues can be addressed. 

10. It is pointed out by Mr.Shalin N. Mehta, learned  Senior Counsel that pursuant to the order of the  Division Bench, the Official Liquidator has not  made any prayer to take back the possession of  the properties of the Company in liquidation in  the present proceedings. 

11. Learned   counsel   for   the   Official   Liquidator  seeks time in order to ascertain whether such a  prayer   has   been   made   in   any   other   proceedings  filed by the Official Liquidator, or not.

12. Learned Senior Counsel for ARCIL would also be  required   to   advance   submissions   on   the   aspect  whether   ARCIL   should   be   asked   to   deposit   the  sale proceeds of the properties of the Company  that   were   sold   during   the   pendency   of   the  Page 5 of 6 HC-NIC Page 5 of 6 Created On Sat Aug 12 17:14:12 IST 2017 O/COMA/212/2015 ORDER petition and after the passing of the order of  the   Division   Bench   dated   07.11.2012,   in   the  Registry   of   this   Court,   as   submitted   by   the  Party­in­Person. 

13. According   to   learned   Senior   Counsel,   this  contention of the Party­in­Person is answered in  the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of  Pegasus   Assets   Reconstruction   P.   Ltd.   v.   M/s.Haryana Concast Limited & Anr.  reported in  2016(1) SCALE 1. 

14. Due to paucity of time, the matter could not be  concluded today, therefore, list on 14.06.2017.

(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) sunil Page 6 of 6 HC-NIC Page 6 of 6 Created On Sat Aug 12 17:14:12 IST 2017