Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: arsh in Shri Laxman Yeswant Prabhudesai vs Nrc Limited on 22 March, 2010Matching Fragments
3. The other prayer is that the Official Liquidator should be restrained from issuing any notice of auction or tender notice and selling the aforementioned plot of land.ig
4. The company application was supported by the affidavit of the appellant No.1. He stated in the affidavit that he is carrying on business as a partner of a partnership firm M/s.. Refair Industries. The business of the firm is of manufacturing electrical parts and assemblies. The firm has been producing electrical assemblies and parts to be supplied to various companies including M/s.. Siemens Limited. The demand for their product has been increasing and in fact, the business with M/s. Siemens Limited necessitated acquisition of more space for production activities. Therefore, the firm was in search of an additional plot of land. One real estate agent known to the first appellant assisted him earlier and, therefore, he informed the said agent that the agent should find out any additional plot for the business of the firm. Accordingly, the agent alongwith another person approached the appellant No.1 in December, 2006 and informed him that M/s. Arsh International Chemical Pvt. Ltd. which is the original applicant No.4 and Respondent No.3 before us was interested in selling plot No.34 (subject plot). Therefore, there was a meeting arranged between the Directors of the said Arsh International Chemical (P) Ltd. After negotiations, it was agreed that the firm would acquire the plot for consideration of Rs.1,80,00,000/-. Thereafter, a token money was paid and subsequently, the Directors of M/s. Arsh International Chemical Pvt.Ltd.
forwarded copies of title deeds and other documents to the partners of the firm. It was asserted in the affidavit that from a perusal of these documents, it is clear that M/s. Arsh International Chemical Pvt.Ltd. have title to the subject plot and in such circumstances, the agreement between the firm and M/s. Arsh International Chemicals was finalised. The amounts as stated in paras 2.7 and 2.8 of the affidavit in support have been paid.
7. It was the case of the applicants that the plot was transferred to M/s. Arsh International Chemical Pvt.Ltd. It was stated that the records pertaining to the subject plot did not reveal that there was any litigation pertaining to the same. There was no fault found with the title of M/s. Arsh International Chemical Pvt.Ltd.
8. It was stated that when M/s.Aminx Alkalies Limited (the company in liquidation) was ordered to be wound up by this court order dated 26th April, 1999, enquiries revealed that there were two plots viz.
He does not dispute that on 18th December, 1998 M/s. Aminex Holdings and Investments have assigned the subject plot to Anwar Ismail Merchant and Ismail Hashan Merchant. On 15th February, 1999, the Merchants (respondent Nos.8 to 10) incorporated the company by the name of Arsh International Chemical Pvt.Ltd. The subject plot was brought in by the Merchants as an asset of Arsh International Chemical Pvt.Ltd. However, Shri Rajadhyaksha submits that the applicants had no knowledge of the order dated 21st April, 2007 passed by this court as they were not parties to the same. By this order, the court set aside the assignment dated 18th December, 1998 which was in favour of the sister concern of the company in liquidation. Shri Rajadhyaksha submits that when the court passed an order of winding up and appointed the Official Liquidator as Liquidator of the said company, for a period of 8 years, the Liquidator did not take any steps with regard to the subject plot. This was a clear indication that the Liquidator was not sure about the said plot being an asset of the company in winding up. It is in such circumstances the applicants acting bonafide on the representation of M/s. Arsh International Chemical Pvt.Ltd. acquired the rights in respect of the subject plot. Therefore, this is a fit case where the Single Judge should have exercised the power conferred by section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 and regularised the transaction between M/s.