Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"Mr. Bansal has drawn my attention to an order dated 23 rd November, 2003 passed in this case wherein it was made clear that all dues, including government dues in respect of the property in question shall be payable by the Auction Purchaser from the date when the possession of the same is handed over to the Auction Purchaser. It is, thus, clear that till the giving of possession of the property to the Auction Purchaser the liability to clear the dues would be that of UPFC, including outstanding dues of Noida Authority, if any. It is, however, clarified that as far as transfer charges are concerned, the same shall be borne by the Auction Purchaser. UPFC shall issue necessary sale certificate and also execute documents of transfer etc. It is stated by learned. counsel appearing for the workmen as well as counsel for the O.L. that UPFC be directed to deposit the amount of sale consideration with the O.L. learned counsel for the UPFC submits that UPFC being a secured creditor is allowed to remain outside the winding up proceedings and he wants some time to argue on this aspect of the matter."

15. Noticeably the Corporation had belatedly filed an application seeking modification/clarification on the question of payment of dues to Noida Authority on 16.10.2006, two years after execution of the sale deed / transfer deed on 26.10.2004.

16. Impugned order after referring to orders dated 20.11.2003 and 29.07.2004, directs that Rs.1.71 crores deposited by the auction purchaser in the company petition which was kept in FDR, would be released to the Noida Authority. Corporation has been directed to pay Rs.1.56 crores to the Noida Authority within 12 weeks from the date of the order i.e. 13.03.2018. The transfer charges, it is directed would be paid by the auction purchaser and thereafter Noida Authority shall carry out the necessary mutation in the name of the auction purchaser within six months.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Corporation had only received Rs. 4,25,00,000/- from the auction purchaser and their dues are much more and payment of any amount to Noida Authority would not be correct and justified. Contention is untenable in view of the terms agreed and acted upon by the Corporation. No doubt the property was mortgaged to the appellant Corporation but the property was owned by the Noida Authority created by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Noida Authority is the superior lessor, and in terms of the lease has first charge and right to claim their dues.

18. We have not been shown any clause in the lease agreement between the company under liquidation and the Noida Authority or otherwise under which the Corporation would have preference over the dues of the Noida Authority. This contention of the appellant would therefore fail and is rejected.

19. At this stage, learned counsel for the Corporation submits that Official Liquidator is in possession of some funds on account of sale of other assets of the company under liquidation. It was submitted that dues of Noida Authority could be more than the sale consideration received. Impugned order does not deal with any such submission and issue. It will for the Corporation to move an application in case they seek payment of money available with the Official Liquidator or they claim limit of liability beyond sale consideration.