Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 57 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing United Bank Of India vs Official Liquidator on 6 October, 1993

M/S Vidya Vikas Samithi Trust, Tandur vs Syed Mehdi Ali Khan Sinkander on 23 February, 2021

28. In view of the aforesaid legal position, and on analysis of oral and documentary evidence, it is clear from Exs.A.1 to A.9, A.16, A.20 to A.37, and Exs.B.1 to B.37 that the plaintiff and its predecessor-in- title are in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Though the defendants claimed their possession and title, but they failed to place any cogent and convincing evidence except harping on Exs.B.36 to B.48 which are pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in pursuant to the proceedings dated 11.01.2012 under Ex.B.34. The said Exhibits show that the same were issued simultaneously on the date of orders passed by the Tahsildar under Ex.B.34, and B.48 is the patta for the year 2012-13 and the said pahani also issued in pursuant to the orders under Ex.B.34 and all are of the same year of 2012. Therefore, in the absence of placing any earlier pahanis to show their possession, it cannot be accepted that the defendants were in possession of the suit schedule property and admittedly the plaintiff disputed the same which is subject matter of W.P.No.17376 of 2012. The learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 6 heavily relied on Ex.B.33, the proceedings of the Joint Collector, dated 16.09.2003, wherein he set aside the proceedings dated 44 17.03.1991 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad, under Ex.B.30. The Joint Collector relying on clause 6 of the sale deed held that on the principle that 'no man can transfer better title than what he has' and further held that Mir Mohammed Ali Khan is the pattadar, who is not a party to the registered sale deed and therefore, it is not binding on him. The Joint Collector failed to read clause 6 of the sale deed in its entirety and in the first part of the limb, all the right, title, interest and possession was conveyed to the purchaser and in the second limb, it was stated that the sale will be without any warranty or guarantee and shall be without any liability on the part of the Official Liquidator. The said clause is incorporated only in the event of any claim made by third parties at a future date, the Official Liquidator is not liable and purchaser shall not claim any diminution in the property as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1994) 1 SCC 575, United Bank of India vs. Official Liquidator. The defendants further claimed that as per Exs.B.1 to B.7, Mir Mohammed Ali Khan name was shown as pattadar and contended that he is a rightful owner and possessor of the suit schedule land. It is evident from said Exs.B.1 to B.7, the name of "Cheeni Factory" i.e., M/s. Deccan Porcelain and Potteries Limited, was shown in possessory column. Therefore, the claim of the possession by the defendants falsifies their claim of possession. Further, D.W.1 45 admitted in cross-examination that they never cultivated the suit lands. It is well settled law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions that the revenue entries do not confer any title. As stated above, the plaintiff could be able to establish its possession over the suit schedule property by way of oral and documentary evidence. The Trial Court without considering the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective, more particularly with regard to Ex.A.16, wherein it was specifically recorded that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule land and earlier to that, "Cheeni Factory" i.e., M/s. Deccan Porcelain and Potteries Limited, was in possession of the same for the last 35 years. The said findings and observations under Ex.A.16 are binding on the Court below. The Court below also failed to consider the purport of the clause 6 of the sale deed in proper perspective and relying on the order of the Joint Collector, Ex.B.33, holding that the name of Mir Mohammed Ali Khan was recorded as pattadar and, therefore, dismissed the suit without looking into the possessory column in Ex.B.1 to B.7 wherein the name of the Cheeni Factory was recorded. The Trial Court also without framing the issue with regard to title decided the title of the defendants, which is unsustainable in law.
Telangana High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - G S Devi - Full Document

M/S.Tci Distribution Centres Ltd vs The Official Liquidator on 8 September, 2009

12. Contrary to the above contentions, Mr.Arvind P.Datar, the learned senior counsel representing the Official Liquidator (1st respondent) would submit, inter alia, that when the company is wound up, the duty of the Official Liquidator is to take into custody of the properties of the company; but the properties do not vest with the Official Liquidator and he could act only as per the records of the company under liquidation; that the Official Liquidator cannot hold any guarantee or warranty when he sells the properties of the company under liquidation; that in case of auction sale, there is no warranty of title and issuance of a notification by the Official Liquidator was only an invitation to treat and the offer is actually made by the bidder and the acceptance is by the auctioneer, namely, the Official Liquidator; that only on acceptance, the contract becomes complete; that the auction purchaser is expected to investigate into the title before making such offer; that in the instant case, the notification was issued and publication was also made on 16.12.2007; that after long interval of such publication, the appellant has purchased the property and that during the interregnum period, the appellant should have made necessary enquiry in respect of title and possession of the properties and if not done, it was his fault and he should not find fault with the Official Liquidator; that in the instant case, the Official Liquidator has not suppressed any fact; that since at the time of publication and also notice of tender, it was specifically stated that 'as is where is and whatever there is basis' and thus, there was no deception or misrepresentation made. Placing reliance on the decision of UNITED BANK OF INDIA ..vs.. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND OTHERS (1994)1 SCC 575), the learned senior counsel would submit that the sale by the Official Liquidator did not mean that he held out a warranty or guarantee in respect of the property sold and it was distinguishable from the sale effected by the individuals selling immovable properties.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Official Liquidator,Calcutta vs Ujjain Nagar Palika Nigam on 4 May, 2023

It would be, in our opinion, thoroughly unreasonable to foist the liability on a purchaser without first letting him know prior to the sale about such liability. Enquiries at site must have been made by the ultimate purchaser before he offered his bid. The purchaser could have been informed there of the encumbrances. He could have also been told about it prior to his depositing the balance sale consideration. The proceedings before the Company Court were decided without giving any opportunity to the Official Liquidator to file counter affidavits to the applications filed by the Nigam, as it appears from the stay petitions. We, however, find no averment in the stay petitions to the effect that after the respondent no.3 had expressed interest to purchase the assets of the company in liquidation, the Official Liquidator had made him aware that purchase of such assets would carry with it the liability to pay arrear taxes recoverable by the Nigam. In the absence of such an averment, we find it difficult to hold that the respondent no.3 ought to bear the liability instead of the Official Liquidator. At this stage, it would be worthwhile to consider the decision of the Apex Court in United Bank of India (supra) cited by Mr. Ghosh. The Official Liquidator, in that case, had sold the assets of the company in liquidation on the basis of Terms and Conditions of Sale to Triputi Jute Industries. Clause (2) of such terms and conditions was as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

The vs Unknown on 13 April, 2009

17.2. He submitted that, while selling such properties, the Official Liquidator cannot hold any guarantee or warranty, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Official Liquidator [1994] 1 SCC 575. His further submission is that in case of auction sale, there is no warranty of title. Issuing of notification by the Official Liquidator does not amount to making an offer, but it is only an invitation to treat and in fact, the offer is made only by the bidder and acceptance is by the auctioneer, viz., the Official Liquidator and only after the acceptance, the contract concludes. Therefore, the purchaser, while making offer, of course, based on an advertisement, is expected to investigate the title before making such offer. There is no deception played by the Official Liquidator at any point willingly. It is his contention that only in a case where the Official Liquidator has willingly made certain false statement, there can be any interference by the Court and not in cases, where the Official Liquidator makes a report based on the available records of the company under liquidation. His contention is that there is absolutely no deception made by the Official Liquidator on the facts and circumstances of the case and there is absolutely no intention to deceive anyone, which is also not the case of the applicant.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

Shayona Land Corporation & vs Official Liquidator Of on 15 January, 2013

12.3. Relying upon the above decision, even this Court in Company Application No. 463/2009 has refused to grant similar relief of refund which was claimed on the ground that there is shortfall in the area of the land sold. It is required to be noted at this stage that even in the deed of conveyance it has been so stated that the possession of the premises of the Company in liquidation has been handed over to the purchaser, which has been accepted by them and at that time the appellants-original applicants-auction purchasers did not raise any objection and/or dispute. Thus, as such, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when what was put to sale/offered to sale was the entire property of the Company in liquidation, except the records and there was no representation by the Official Liquidator that 62,310 sq meter of the total area of the land is put to sale and the sale was on as is where is and whatever there is basis , thereafter, it is not open for the appellants-original applicants-auction purchasers to pray for any refund on the ground of any short delivery. It is to be noted that as such there is no short delivery and/or less area sold to the appellants-original applicants-auction purchasers and, therefore, the learned Company Court has materially erred in passing the impugned order even with respect to 3603 sq meter of the land and that too at the rate of Rs. 1291.92 sq meter i.e Rs. 46,54,787.76 . Even the appellants-original applicants-auction purchasers were not entitled to refund at the rate of Rs. 1291.92 sq meter. As stated hereinabove, the offer made by the appellants-original applicants-auction purchasers was for net Rs. 8,05,00,000/- and not per sq meter. Thus, the learned Judge has committed an error in even passing the order of refund with respect to the aforesaid 3603 sq meter of land. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the Company Court in the case of Company Application No. 463/2009 would not be of any assistance to the appellants-original applicants and/or the same would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, another question that if the area short delivered is less by 5% of the total area, it would be not be considered as substantial and no order of refund would be required and if it exceeds 5%, refund would be required minus the area of 5% is kept open, which can be considered in appropriate case. So far as the present case is concerned, as stated hereinabove, the applicants-original appellants-auction purchasers are not entitled to any refund on the ground of alleged short delivery of 6718 sq meter of land.
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - M R Shah - Full Document

Aarsh Infrastructure Limited vs O L Of Aryodaya Ginning And on 15 January, 2013

6. Now so far as the submission made by Shri Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that the learned Company Judge has materially erred in relying upon the earlier decision in Company Application No. 427/2004 as against the said decision, O.J. Appeal No. 51/2009 was pending before the learned appellate Court is concerned, it is required to be noted that subsequently O.J. Appeal No. 51/2009 is also dismissed by the Division Bench. Under the circumstances, on the aforesaid ground, the impugned order is not required to be quashed and set aside.
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - M R Shah - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next