Delhi High Court - Orders
Re-Shahi Fashions Pvt Ltd vs Unknown on 8 February, 2019
Author: Jayant Nath
Bench: Jayant Nath
$~OS-25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.PET. 475/2011
RE-SHAHI FASHIONS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Deepak Anand, Standing Counsel with
Mr.Aayushmaan Vatsyayana and
Ms.Hemlata Rawat, Advs. for the Official
Liquidator.
Mr.Arpit Maheshwari, Adv. for the
petitioner- Grandeur Collection.
Mr.Sanjiv Kakra and Ms.Nistha Gupta,
Advs. for R-3/Dinesh Mahajan.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
ORDER
% 08.02.2019 CA No.1287/2015
1. I have heard arguments on this application.
2. This application is filed by the OL under sections 536(2), 537(1)(b) and 538 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 seeking to set aside the sale regarding Plot No.40, Industrial Estate, Sector-38, Phase-I, Rai, Sonepat, Haryana made on 10.01.2013.
3. The case of the OL is that the present winding up petition was filed on 08.11.2011. This court on 03.09.2013 admitted the company petition and appointed the OL attached to this court as the provisional liquidator of the respondent company. The OL thereafter took steps regarding the assets of the respondent company.
4. In the course of winding up of the company, the OL got information that the property in question had been sold by the respondent company on 15.01.2013 to one Sh.Dinesh Mahajan for a sum of Rs.60 lacs. Hence, the present application.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant/Sh.Dinesh Mahajan has pointed out that non-applicant is a bonafide purchaser without knowledge of pendency of the present winding up proceedings. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Mehra & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 (2) SCC 756; judgment of this court in Motorola India Ltd. v. DSS Mobile Communications Ltd. 2004 (76) DRJ 214; judgment of the Bombay High Court in Monark Enterprises v. Kishan Tulpule & Ors, 1992, Co. Cases Vol.74 (89) and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Coats of India Ltd. v. M/s Mitra Prakash Ltd., CP 35/2000 to contend that sections 536(2) and 537(1)(b) of the Companies Act gives discretion to the company court to mould its order based on bonafide of the parties.
6. The learned counsel for the OL however relies upon the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Balvinder Kaur Rao v. M/s Grow Green Forest (India) Ltd. & Ors.; judgments of this court in the case of Ram Janam Sharma v. JVG Finance Ltd., (2011) IIIAD (Delhi) 280 and Greaves Fesesco Ltd. v. Ratlam Ispat Ltd. (1997) 88 Co.Cases 155 (Delhi); and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 511 to contend that provisions of section 537(1)(b) is mandatory and the sale which is the subject matter of the present application is liable to be declared as null and void.
7. Before I deal with this matter further, in my opinion, to ascertain some of the issues, it would first be relevant to have the valuation done of the property in question.
8. Accordingly, Mr.K.C.Talwar, Chartered Engineer, G-45, First Floor, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110014 (Mobile No.: 9810079212) is appointed as the valuer to assess valuation of the said property. He may carry out necessary inspection of the property on 26.02.2019 at 11:00 A.M. The non-applicant will render all necessary cooperation to the valuer to carry out necessary valuation for the purpose of current value of the property and also to value as in the year 2013. The OL and the non-applicant will supply full detail of the property in question. Report be filed within four weeks. His fees is fixed at Rs.40,000/-. Non-applicant will deposit the said sum of Rs.40,000/- with the OL within one week from today.
9. The petitioner/representative and the authorised representative of the OL may also be present at the time of inspection of the said property by the valuer.
10. List on 05.04.2019.
JAYANT NATH, J.
FEBRUARY 08, 2019/v