Sale deed contrary to Injunction is not a valid deed even though the applicant entitle to invoked Court jurisdiction under Sec 536(2) of Companies Act 1956

In view of the order dated 23rd August, 2011 passed in Co. Appl. 1633/2011 in Co. Pet. No. 265/1998 as well as the fact that sale deeds in the present applications have been executed and some payments have been paid only after appointment of Provisional Liquidator, this Court finds no infirmity in the decision rendered by the One Man Committee. It is pertinent to mention that the sale deeds have been executed contrary to a specific injunction order dated 05th June, 1998 and the payments made by the applicants after the appointment of Provisional Liquidator have not been received by the Official Liquidator. Further, no transparent procedure of sale/auction has been followed as is normally done in cases after appointment of Provisional Liquidator. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that even though the applicants are entitled in law to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, yet keeping in view the totality of the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief under the said Section.

HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CO. APPLS. 2274/2011, 2280/2011, 2283/2011, 2286/2011, 2289/2011, 2292/2011, 2301/2011, 2304/2011, 2307/2011 & 2313/2011 IN CO. PET. 265/1998

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA  versus M/S. JVG FINANCE LTD.    

Date of Decision: 22nd November, 2011

J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN, J : (Oral)

1. Present applications have been filed against the impugned orders passed by Mr. J. P. Aggarwal, one man Committee appointed by this Court rejecting their claims in respect of plots in JVG Hills Layout, Kondhapur Village, Hyderabad. The details of the land where ownership is claimed as well as the dates of impugned sale deeds according to the impugned reports of the Committee are mentioned in the chart given below:

 2. In view of the order dated 23rd August, 2011 passed in Co. Appl. 1633/2011 in Co. Pet. No. 265/1998 as well as the fact that sale deeds in the present applications have been executed and some payments have been paid only after appointment of Provisional Liquidator, this Court finds no infirmity in the decision rendered by the One Man Committee. It is pertinent to mention that the sale deeds have been executed contrary to a specific injunction order dated 05th June, 1998 and the payments made by the applicants after the appointment of Provisional Liquidator have not been received by the Official Liquidator. Further, no transparent procedure of sale/auction has been followed as is normally done in cases after appointment of Provisional Liquidator. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that even though the applicants are entitled in law to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, yet keeping in view the totality of the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief under the said Section.

3. Accordingly, the applications are dismissed. It is held that the applicants/claimants are not entitled to allotment of plots mentioned hereinabove. The applicants are further permanently restrained from selling, parting with possession and encumbering with the said plots on the basis of the impugned sale deeds. However, the applicants are entitled to simple interest @ 4% per annum on the amounts deposited prior to 5th June, 1998 with the respondent company on production of sufficient evidence to the Official Liquidator of payments made to the respondent company.

MANMOHAN,J

Related posts:

1. Validity of sale deed executed by de facto guardian on behalf of minor without permission of court
2. Subsequent sale in-transit cannot be denied exemption under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on the ground that first sale was exempted
3. Can the provision barring civil court’s jurisdiction in the proposed companies act be effective?
4. Jurisdiction of HC over a case whose cause of action arose from an order delivered by an appellate authority which is situated in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court
5. Difference between agreed price for purchase of property and price registered in sale deed taxable