CASE LAW DETAILS
Decided by: HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
In The case of: The Committee Representing RBF Nidhi Ltd. v. Vipanchi Investments Pvt. Ltd.
Appeal No. : OSA Nos. 343 to 345, 390 to 392 of 2007 & 130 to 132 of 2008
Decided on: February 3, 2009
SUMMARY OF CASE LAW
The company in liquidation is entitled to invoke the provisions of section 171 of the Contract Act relating to general lien over the properties offered as security to cover all the loans availed by the owners’ POA and the claim of the owners seeking redemption of the title deeds in terms of section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act must yield to such right and consequently the right to claim redemption cannot be accepted.
RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS:
7. At the outset, we would like to point out that the Committee constituted to manage the affairs of M/s R.B.F. Nidhi Limited had been superseded, as it is under the control of the Provisional Liquidator of this Court. An objection was also raised by Mr.M.Ravindran, learned Additional Solicitor General of India that the Federation of Investors Association cannot be heard. Though O.S.A.Nos.343 to 345 of 2007 cannot be prosecuted by the Committee which is not in existence as on today, as the very same common order is put in issue before this Court in the other appeals and they were parties to the applications before the Court below, and also for an effective adjudication of the issue, we are of the opinion that the learned counsel for the erstwhile Committee should also be heard. Therefore, we permit Mr.Arvind P.Datar, learned Senior Counsel representing the erstwhile Committee to present his case. So far as the appellant in O.S.A.Nos.390 to 392 of 2007 is concerned, they being the Federation of Investors Association, we permit Mr.P.Girirajan, learned counsel to assist the Court for the very same reason namely, they have also questioned the common order put in issue before this Court and in case any order adversely affecting their rights are passed, they would also be aggrieved. Moreover, they were allowed to come on record to appeal by orders of this Court. Further, as the disposal of the O.S.A.Nos.130 to 132 of 2008 will also govern the issue raised by the Committee and the Federation of Investors Association, the objection raised cannot be accepted and accordingly, we proceed to consider the submissions made by the respective learned counsels in all the appeals.
