Bhanu Pratap Singh v. Official Liquidator & Anr

O R D E R %

13.11.2024

¶1The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated

08.02.2024 passed by the learned Company Court in Company Application No.785/2017 in Company Petition No.178/2012 captioned Pankaj Paliwal v. M/s Vian Infrastructure Limited & Ors.

¶2The aforesaid application was taken up along with several other miscellaneous applications and were disposed of with a direction to the appellant to submit her claims along with relevant documents with the Official Liquidator within the period of four weeks from the said date. The Official Liquidator was also directed to examine the same in accordance with law.

¶3The appellant had filed the aforesaid application in Company Petition No.178/2012, inter alia, praying as under:- "It is therefore requested that Ld. Official Liquidator be kindly directed not to take any action for auctioning/selling the land/ property measuring The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. the area 167.22 Sq. Meters forming part of Chak No.680, Khasra No.899, Khasra No.900 and Khasra No.908/3 (Private plot No.126 Sector-3) situate at village Badhedi Rajputana Pargana and Tehsil Roorkee District Haridwar bounded and butted as under:- North 30 Feet wide Road South Plot No.135 East Plot No. 127 West Plot No. 125 And the Ld. official Liquidator be also kindly directed not to interfere in the ownership and possession of this property of the applicants. And the Ld. Liquidator be also kindly directed that this land/ property was not of respondent Co. and he had no power or authority to take over this land belonging to the applicants and the application be kindly allowed."

¶4It is the appellant's case that his mother acquired certain land (land measuring 167.22 sq. meters) from one Amit Khurmi in terms of the registered sale deed dated 29.05.2009. The schedule of the property (Chak No. 680, Khasra No. 899, Khasra No. 900, & Khasra No. 908/3 situated at village Badhedi, Rajputan, Pargana and Tehsil Roorkee, District-Haridwar) (hereafter referred as the subject property) as included in the registered sale deed is reproduced as under:- "SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY All that land measuring 167.22 sq.meters forming part of Chak No.680, Khasra No.899, Khasra No. 900, & Khasra No. 908/3 (Private plot No 125, Sector-3) situated at village Badhedi, Rajputan, Pargana and Tehsil Roorkee, District-Haridwar bounded and butted as under :- North: 30 Feet Wide Road. South: P1ot No 135. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. East Plot No 127. West Plot No 125."

¶5It is the appellant's case that his mother had purchased the subject property from the owner and the company in liquidation would not have any right, title or interest in the subject property. Consequently, any action of the Official Liquidator in interfering with the appellant's possession of the subject property or taking any further steps, would be without authority of law.

¶6It is relevant to note that the appellant's mother had also entered into the Plot Buyer Agreement (hereafter the Agreement) with the company in liquidation on 01.01.2009. The first recital of the Agreement is relevant and it reads as under:- "(i)The 'First Party' either on its own or through its subsidiary Company or Companies, where one of Vian's Director(s) is Director. or through individual name of its Directors and their family members, through Collaboration Agreement, Deed of Undertaking. Memorandum of Understanding. Registered Sales Deed/Lease Deed/Conveyance Deed/Transfer Deeds, Agreements etc. have acquired rights on the land in the revenue estate of village Badedi Rajputana and District Roorkee (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Land') and is fully seized and possessed of or otherwise well and sufficiently entitled to deal with the said Land."

¶7There is no serious dispute that the Agreement is essentially in respect of the subject property. The Agreement mentions that the description of the property as Plot no. 93, however, there is no dispute that the subject matter of the Agreement is the same land, which the appellant claims that his The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. mother had acquired by virtue of the sale deed dated 29.05.2009.

¶8It is also relevant to refer to clause 3 of the sale deed, which expressly refers to the Agreement. Further, the sale deed also records that the appellant's mother had agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the Agreement (Contract No.H-5495 dated 01.01.2009). The third recital and the relevant clauses are set out below:- "AND WHEREAS the representative of the seller on behalf of the seller has signed Plot/Seller/Buyer Contract No.H-5495 dated 1-1-09 with the purchaser and the seller has agreed to sell and the purchaser has agreed to purchase the Plot mentioned in the schedu1le of this deed for a total amount of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lac Thirty Thousand only) *** ***

¶2The Seller hereby covenants with purchaser as follows:

(a) That the purchaser hereby agrees to abide and fufill the terms and conditions mentioned in Plot/ seller/Buyer Contract No.H-5495 dated 1-1-09 entered into with the representative and on behalf of the Seller and in case the purchaser fails to comply with the conditions mentioned in that agreement than this sale deed will automatically become null and void and shall have no force."

¶9It is apparent from the above that the transactions entered into by the appellant's mother was interlinked. The appellant had entered into the Agreement prior to execution of the sale deed with the owner.

¶10As noted above, the Agreement also indicates that the company in liquidation had acquired certain rights in immovable properties and the appellant's mother had acknowledged the same. The said documents which The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. evidence the transactions between the company in liquidation and the owner is not on the record. However, it is apparent that the same may have bearing on the rights of the appellant in respect of the subject property. We do not propose to examine the said controversy in this appeal.

¶11We note that the learned Company Court had permitted the appellant to raise all claims before the Official Liquidator and had directed the Official Liquidator shall examine the same in accordance with law.

¶12Since, it is appellant's case that her mother is the owner of the subject property and not the company in liquidation, it would be necessary for the Official Liquidator to examine this aspect as well.

¶13We, accordingly, dispose of the appeal by clarifying that the Official Liquidator shall, in the first instance, examine the appellant's claim including in regard to the ownership of the subject property. The appellant shall file its claim along with all relevant documents in his possession before the Official Liquidator in respect of the subject property within the period of four weeks from date.

¶14Needless to state that if the appellant is aggrieved by any of the conclusions drawn by the Official Liquidator, the appellant has all the rights to avail his statutory remedies.

¶15The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J NOVEMBER 13, 2024 M Click here to check corrigendum, if any The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BHANU PRATAP SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr Udhav Pratap, Advocate. Versus OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Ms Ruchi Sindhwani, SSC and Ms Megha Bharara, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA