Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.14 seconds)
Documents citing Bank Of Maharashtra vs Official Liquidator, Navjivan Trading ... on 2 December, 1998

Official Liquidator Of Piramal ... vs Reserve Bank Of India on 21 March, 2003

115. I have considered Sections 441 and 531 of the Companies Act. I have also considered judgment in the case of J.K. (Bombay) P. Ltd. v. New Kaiser-I-Hind Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd. [1970] 40 Comp Cas 689 (SC) particularly on pages 713-714 and also the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Bank of Maharashtra v. Official Liquidator, Navjivan Trading Finance Pvt. Ltd. [1999] 96 Comp Cas 234 and other decisions cited at the Bar. I have also considered the judgments of the hon'ble Supreme Court. I have also considered the submissions regarding flats Nos. 8, 16 and 17. It is an admitted fact that transactions have been entered into in May, 1999, when the amount was not due and payable by the company in liquidation to the purchaser. In spite of the fact that there was no legal threat or compulsion, the company in liquidation has voluntarily transferred the flats in question, namely, flats Nos. 8, 16 and 17 to the purchasers. The company in liquidation has not acted bona fide or in good faith and the transactions entered into by the company in liquidation with the purchasers amount to fraudulent preference as set out under Section 531 of the Companies Act and interpreted by various judgments in this behalf. In view of the same, the flats in question are not transferred in favour of the purchasers as the transactions between the company in liquidation and the purchasers amount to fraudulent preference in the eye of law. Therefore, the property in question, namely flats Nos. 8, 16 and 17, vests in the official liquidator and the transactions entered into by the company in liquidation regarding the property in question with the respective purchasers are contrary to Section 531 of the Companies Act. The said transactions are illegal, bad and liable to be quashed. Ultimately, the property in question, namely flats Nos. 8, 16 and 17, vests in the official liquidator. The official liquidator is directed to seal the property in question and I do not accept the request of the official liquidator to de seal the flats in question for the reasons stated in the judgment.
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

O.L. Of Piramal Financial Services Ltd. vs Reserve Bank Of India on 21 March, 2003

9.27 I have considered Sections 441 and 531 of the Companies Act. I have also considered judgment in the case of J.K. (BOMBAY) P. LTD. v. NEW KAISER-I-HIND SPG. & WVG. CO. LTD. reported in (1970) 40 Company Cases 689 particularly on pages 713-714 and also Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of BANK OF MAHARASHTRA v. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR (supra) and other decisions cited at the Bar. I have also considered the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I have also considered the submissions regarding flat Nos. 8, 16 and 17. It is an admitted fact that the transactions have been entered into in May, 1999 when the amount was not due and payable by the company in liquidation to the purchaser. In spite of the fact that there was no legal threat or compulsion, the company in liquidation has voluntarily transferred the flats in question, namely, flat Nos. 8, 16 and 17 to the purchasers. The company in liquidation has not acted bona fide or in good faith and the transactions entered into by the company in liquidation with the purchasers amount to fraudulent preference as set out under Section 531 of the Companies Act and interpreted by various judgments in this behalf. In view of the same, the flats in question are not transferred in favour of the purchasers as the transactions between the company in liquidation and the purchasers amount to fraudulent preference in the eye of law. Therefore, the property in question, namely flat Nos. 8, 16 and 17, vests in the Official Liquidator and the transactions entered into by the company in liquidation regarding the property in question with the respective purchasers are contrary to Section 531 of the Companies Act. The said transactions are illegal, bad and liable to be quashed. Ultimately, the property in question, namely flat Nos. 8, 16 and 17, vests in the Official Liquidator. The Official Liquidator is directed to seal the property in question and I do not accept the request of the Official Liquidator to deseal the flats in question for the reasons stated in the judgment.
Gujarat High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Nigam Priyakant Maniar vs Reserve Bank Of India on 26 September, 2003

6.2 "Para 9.27 I have considered Sections 441 and 531 of the Companies Act. I have also considered judgment in the case of J.K. (Bombay) P.Ltd. Vs. New Kaiser-I-Hind Spg. & Wvg. Co.Ltd. reported in (1970) 40 Company Cases 689 particularly on pages 713-714 and also Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Official Liquidator (supra) and other decisions cited at the Bar. I have also considered the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I have also considered the submissions regarding flat Nos.8, 16 and 17. It is an admitted fact that the transactions have been entered into in May, 1999 when the amount was not due and payable by the company in liquidation to the purchaser. In spite of the fact that there was no legal threat or compulsion, the company in liquidation has voluntarily transferred the flats in question, namely, flat Nos.8, 16 and 17 to the purchasers. The company in liquidation has not acted bona fide or in good faith and the transactions entered into by the company in liquidation with the purchasers amount to fraudulent preference as set out under Section 531 of the Companies Act and interpreted by various judgments in this behalf. In view of the same, the flats in question are not transferred in favour of the purchasers as the transactions between the company in liquidation and the purchasers amount to fraudulent preference in the eye of law. Therefore, the property in question, namely flat Nos. 8, 16 and 17, vests in the Official Liquidator and the transactions entered into by the company in liquidation regarding the property in question with the respective purchasers are contrary to Section 531 of the Companies Act. The said transactions are illegal, bad and liable to be quashed. Ultimately, the property in question, namely flat Nos.8, 16 and 17, vests in the Official Liquidator. The Official Liquidator is directed to seal the property in question and I do not accept the request of the Official Liquidator to deseal the flats in question for the reasons stated in the judgment.
Gujarat High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

In Re: Prudential Capital Markets Ltd. ... vs Unknown on 8 October, 2007

24. The respondent refers to a Gujarat Division Bench decision reported in Bank of Maharashtra v. Official Liquidator, Navjivan Trading Finance (P) Ltd. (1999) 2 Comp LJ 121 (Guj) : (1999) 96 Comp Cas 234 (Guj), to emphasise that for a transaction to be hit by Section 531 of the Act, such transaction has per force to be entered into by the company, within the period covered by the section, with a creditor of the company. Upon construing Section 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act in that case, the Gujarat High Court was of the view that discharge of a debt by a company within the prescribed period may, by itself, not be deemed to be fraudulent unless the element of intent on the part of the company at the time of discharging the debt is established. The respondent in this case is right in asserting that fraudulent preference implies that the impugned transaction is with a creditor of the company. The reference to the insolvency rules adds weight to such contention just as the immediate succeeding section, Section 531A of the Act, indicates that transactions with persons other than creditors may be annulled and considered void against the liquidator under the later provision. There is considerable merit in the respondent's assertion that if Section 531 were to be applied in relation to a transaction with a person other than a creditor, Section 531A may be otiose.
Calcutta High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - S Banerjee - Full Document
1