Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 5636 Del
Judgement Date : 22 November, 2011
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW 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 ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Swati Setia, Advocate.
versus
M/S. JVG FINANCE LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bahl, Advocate with
Mr. Manish K. Bishnoi,
Advocate for Official
Liquidator.
Mr. P. Nagesh, Advocate with
Mr. Anand K. Mishra,
Advocate for Applicants.
% Date of Decision: 22nd November, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes.
JUDGMENT
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:
Sl. CA No. Plot No. Date of Impugned
No. Sale Deed(s)
1. 2274/2011 B - 563 15/10/1999
2. 2280/2011 C - 337 24/01/2000
3. 2283/2011 C - 321 15/10/1999
4. 2286/2011 B - 549 22/06/2000
(Eastern Part)
5. 2289/2011 B - 549 22/06/2000
(Western Part)
6. 2292/2011 F - 231 02/12/1998
7. 2301/2011 E - 323 A 12/06/1998
8. 2304/2011 C - 387 17/07/1998
9. 2307/2011 A - 530 27/01/2001
10. 2313/2011 C - 374 10/07/1998
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 NOVEMBER 22, 2011 js
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!