Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1] Heard on I.A. No.7394/2022 which is an application filed by applicant Vijay Choudhary, who happens to be the Ex-Director of the Zoom Developers Private Limited the company under liquidation.

2] In the aforesaid application the following reliefs have been sought by the applicant:-

"i. Union bank of India be directed to forfeit the entire Amount that has been paid by the Auction Purchaser, M/s Sunview Private Limited and order for fresh auction. ii. The Official Liquidator be directed to file a proper detailed explanation as to why the Official Liquidator is not performing its legal duties and acting in the interest of the Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Company under Liquidation).

iii. Seeking indulgence of the court so as to ensure that the established principles of law are being followed and justice is served to the aggrieved party.

iv. Seeking leave of this Hon'ble court to the applicant to represent Zoom Developers Private Limited before Supreme Court in the M.A. No.1735/2022 filed by the Auction Purchaser, M/s Sunview Assets Private Limited, before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai and other forums to safeguard the interest of the company and all the costs for the same shall be borne by the applicant itself. v. Call for an office report to be filed by the Official Liquidator on the present issue.

vi. Pass any such orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary."

3] Counsel for the applicant has submitted that Union Bank of India had granted a loan of around Rs.35 crores to the Zoom Developers Private Limited. The contention of the applicant is that Union Bank of India has filed a Civil Appeal No.1902 of 2020 which is pending in the Supreme Court, in respect of the properties of Rajat Infrastructure Private Limited of whom the applicant happens to be the one of the Directors and since the property of Rajat Infrastructure is to be sold for settling the dues of Zoom Developers Private Limited and according to the applicant the procedure adopted by the Union Bank of India is contrary to law, the realization of the proceeds of the property at the instance of Union Bank of India would have an adverse effect on the realization of the amount due to the Zoom Developers, the company under liquidation and thus, the Official Liquidator, who is already a party in the Supreme Court be directed to contest the illegal action of the Union Bank in the Supreme Court. It is also submitted that if the OL is not inclined to contest the matter in the Supreme Court, then, the applicant himself be allowed to contest the matter on behalf of the OL.

4] Counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator, however, has submitted that the properties to be auctioned by the Union Bank of India is of Rajat Infrastructure Private Limited and not of Zoom Developers Private Limited and thus, it is doubtful if the Official Liquidator is also a necessary party to the aforesaid proceedings in the Supreme Court.

5] On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of the documents filed on record, in the considered opinion of this Court since the matter is pending before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1902 of 2020, and the Official Liquidator is arrayed as the respondent No.4 through Zoom Developers Private Limited, it is for the Official Liquidator to contest the aforesaid matter and ensure that in the process of liquidation of a company there should be maximum realization of proceeds from the sale of property of the company or its gurantor, and since the properties of Rajat Infrastructure Private Limited are to be sold for settling the dues of Zoom Developers, it is expected from the Official Liquidator to contest the matter on merits in the Supreme Court. The cost of which to be borne by the applicant himself.