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 2, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Ol Of The Trueflo Engineers Ltd. (In ... on 22 January, 2021

Author: Biren Vaishnav

Bench: Biren Vaishnav

         C/COMA/75/2019                                       ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 75 of 2019
                              With
           R/OFFICIAL LIQUDATOR REPORT NO. 141 of 2019
                               In
                 COMPANY PETITION NO. 358 of 1997
                              With
            R/OFFICIAL LIQUDATOR REPORT NO. 2 of 2019
                               In
                 COMPANY PETITION NO. 358 of 1997
==========================================================
                  KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED
                             Versus
           OL OF THE TRUEFLO ENGINEERS LTD. (IN LIQN)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TIRTH NAYAK(8563) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JEET J BHATT(6154) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR(16) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                            Date : 22/01/2021

                             ORAL ORDER

1. The controversy that arises in this Official Liquidator's reports and the Company Application is that the Kotak Mahindra Bank (for short 'the Bank') is pressing for possession of the property of the company in liquidation on the ground that it has primacy to sell such property to appropriate the sale proceeds towards its dues. For the same reliance is placed by Mr. Tirth Nayak, learned advocate for the applicant on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited vs. Haryana Concast Limited and Another [(2016) 4 SCC 47].

2. The brief chronology of events would indicate that the company is Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Sat Jan 23 05:50:01 IST 2021 C/COMA/75/2019 ORDER in liquidation since 1998. The Official Liquidator after having taken possession of the assets in 1998, according to Mr. Tirth Nayak, learned advocate for the applicant bank has not conducted sale except on 3 occasions and the auction has failed. He also pointed out that the property has not been taken care of by the Official Liquidator and nobody has remained present on site for maintenance of the property.

3. Per contra, the concern of the Official Liquidator seems to be that they have been incurring expenses towards security charges of the property atleast till the symbolic possession was taken over by the bank in December 2019 and are continuing to do so. The expenses towards security charges till August 2020 would come to about Rs.12,49,884/-. The Official Liquidator has submitted a bill for an amount of Rs.12,49,884/-.

4. Considering and taking care of the expenses that the Official Liquidator has incurred for the property in question and the concern of the bank, in the event, the bank pays the outstanding amount of Rs.12,49,884/- in the account of the Official Liquidator within four weeks from today, the Official Liquidator shall hand over physical possession of the property in question to the bank so that the bank can undertake proper procedure under the SARFAESI Act for auction of the property in question.

5. For further orders, stand over to 05.03.2021.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) DIVYA Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Sat Jan 23 05:50:01 IST 2021