Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Comp.A.No.1208 of 2002 was, however, dismissed by the learned Company Judge, via the judgement and order dated 21.04.2003, on the principal ground that the subject transaction amounted to a fraudulent preference.

6.1. UWB/IDBI, being aggrieved, preferred an appeal with the Division Bench, which was numbered O.S.A.No.284 of 2003. This appeal was filed in and about August 2003. O.S.A.No.284 of 2003, met the same fate, that is, it was dismissed by the Division Bench, vide judgement and order dated 17.08.2009.

(i).That the Comp.A.No.734 of 2011 was not maintainable, as at the time of admission of the Company Petition, this Court had categorically held that KOFL had lost its substratum and was unable to pay its debts.
(ii).That the entire purpose of filing Comp.A.No.734 of 2011 was to enable KOFL to obtain interest in the subject property, which it seeks to root in the agreement for sale dated 17.02.2000. Since, the subject transaction was set aside by this Court, by holding it to be a fraudulent preference in favour of UWB/IDBI, the attempt, now made is to neutralize its impact.
(ix).This transaction was subject matter of Comp.A.No.1208 of 2002, whereby, UWB/IDBI sought issuance of a direction to the Administrator for execution of sale deed. The Company Judge vide order dated 21.04.2003, dismissed the application by labeling it as a fraudulent preference.
(x).Appeal preferred by UWB/IDBI, which is numbered as O.S.A.No.284 of 2003, was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 17.08.2009.
(xi).Against the said order dated 17.08.2009, UWB/IDBI has preferred a SLP, which is pending adjudication.
(iii).The provisions of Section 531 of the 1956 Act, pertaining to, fraudulent preference were applicable, as the transfer of right and/or interest in the subject property had not taken place. This finding was returned in the context of the argument advanced on behalf of UWB/IDBI that the subject transaction took place on 17.02.2000, which was more than six (6) months prior to the date of presentation of the winding up petition, i.e. 02.07.2001 and hence would not amount to fraudulent preference.