Wednesday, 29, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Reserve Bank Of India vs M/S. Jvg Finance Ltd.
2011 Latest Caselaw 5636 Del

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 5636 Del
Judgement Date : 22 November, 2011

Delhi High Court
Reserve Bank Of India vs M/S. Jvg Finance Ltd. on 22 November, 2011
Author: Manmohan
$~
* 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

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter