Delhi High Court - Orders
Deutsche Trustee Company Ltd vs Tulip Telecom Ltd on 2 May, 2022
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~10 (Company)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.PET. 329/2013
DEUTSCHE TRUSTEE COMPANY LTD ..... Petitioner
Through:
versus
TULIP TELECOM LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Shubhendu Bhattacharya,
Advocate for Mr Kunal Sharma,
Advocate for Official Liquidator.
Mr Abhishek Krishan, Advocate for
Intervener in CA No. 224/2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 02.05.2022 CA No. 208/2019
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CA 207/20193. The applicant has filed the present application, inter alia, praying as under:
"a) direct the Official Liquidator to de-seal the leased premises, being 9-1-70, 71/1/2/A; First Floor, Mohd Ali & Sons Compound; 32, SD Road, Secunderabad;
b) direct the Official Liquidator and the respondent company to hand over vacant possession of the leased premises, being 9-1-70, 71/1/2/A; First Floor Mohd Ali & Sons Compound; 32, SD Road, Secunderabad to the applicant herein;"
4. The learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator states that Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:04.05.2022 he has been unable to handover the possession of the leased premises to the landlord as there are certain movable assets of the respondent company lying in the demised premises.
5. He further states that the said assets have been valued at ₹88,000/-. However, the valuation report is not on record. The applicant has produced the photographs of the principal movable assets being the network tower on the top of the premises. The photographs show that the tower has collapsed and is in a dismal state.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant states that although the Official Liquidator claims that the value of the movable assets is ₹88,000/-, it is a fraction of that value as the said assets are, essentially, scrap material. However, in order to secure the release of its premises, the applicant is willing to pay the said amount to the Official Liquidator.
7. The contentions advanced on behalf of the applicant are merited. The photographs clearly indicate that the network tower has collapsed and the jumbled-up wires are lying near the collapsed tower.
8. The learned counsel for the Official Liquidator submits that the offer of the applicant to purchase the movable assets at the value of ₹88,000/-, be accepted as there is no possibility of realising a value higher than that.
9. In view of the above, the Official Liquidator is directed to de-seal the premises in question on the applicant paying a sum of ₹88,000/-, which should be accounted as the sale proceeds of the movable assets lying on the said premises.
10. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. CO.PET. 329/2013 and CA Nos. 931/2016, 1622/2016, 2421/2016, 2423/2016, 3733/2016, 3734/2016, 3735/2016, 4075/2016, 4623/2016, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:04.05.2022 38/2017, 973/2018, 322/2019, 1104/2019, 110/2020, 134/2020, 177/2020, 271/2020, 374/2020, 395/2020, 462/2020, 3/2021, 39/2021, 643/2021, 664/2021, 224/2022 and OLR Nos. 134/2016, 220/2016, 254/2016, 160/2017 & 30/2020
11. The learned counsel for the Official Liquidator states that he shall file a compressive report before the next date of hearing.
12. List on 23.08.2022.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
MAY 2, 2022
RK Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:Dushyant Rawal
Signing Date:04.05.2022