Delhi High Court
Lt. Col. Rps Dhanoa (Retd.) & Ors. vs Jvg Finance Ltd. on 11 September, 2012
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 11th September, 2012
+ CO. APP. NO.71/2011
% LT. COL. RPS DHANOA (RETD.) & ORS. ....Appellants
Through: Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi & Ms. Anjali
Chaturvedi, Advs.
Versus
JVG FINANCE LTD. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bahl, Adv. for Official
Liquidator.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The sixty appellants are aggrieved from the dismissal by the learned
Company Judge, vide order dated 21.04.2011, of Company Applications
No.543/2011, 626-672/2011, 681-690/2011 and 723-725/2011 preferred by
them in Company Petition No.265/1998 for the winding up of JVG Finance
Ltd. and which has been ordered to be wound up.
2. The appellants are the purchasers of plots of land in Chaudhary
Charan Singh Avas Yojana, Baghpat project of development by
colonization, undertaken by the company in liquidation. They have been
found to be genuine bona fide purchasers of the said plots of land. They
filed the applications aforesaid seeking a direction to the Baghpat
Development Authority or the Uttar Pradesh PWD or the CPWD to further
develop the colony, demarcate the plots and allot the same to the appellants.
3. The Company Judge, vide order dated 16.04.2009 had constituted a
three member Committee to report about the aforesaid project of the
company in liquidation. The said Committee inter alia reported that the
total land on which the colony was intended to be developed was 53.86
acres but details only of about 46.50 acres were made available; an area of
5.80 acres was in the year 2000 purported to be transferred to some other
person; that hardly any development work has been done on the land; that
the site falls in rural area and though the layout plans of the colony were
purported to have been approved on 19.02.1991 but no confirmation thereof
is available; similarly, no sanctioned layout plans are available; that even if
sanction had been obtained in the year 1991, the same would have by now
lapsed and will have to be obtained afresh; that huge expenditure is required
to be incurred on the development work.
4. On the basis of the report aforesaid, the learned Company Judge has
concluded that the directions, as sought by the appellants, could not be
issued and more so when the office of the Official Liquidator is
overburdened and has no expertise in such development. The learned
Company Judge has accordingly directed refund of the amounts paid by the
appellants with simple interest at 4% per annum in lieu of allotment of land
to be done. The claim of appellants for additional compensation has been
left open, to be considered after auction of the said land.
5. Notice of this appeal was issued on the contention of the counsel for
the appellants that the appellants be allowed to develop the land themselves.
6. The Official Liquidator in the reply filed has stated that though
sincere attempt was made to explore the possibility of handing over
possession of the plots to the appellants but in the absence of any
demarcation or layout plan, the same is not feasible; that the developmental
cost itself is estimated at approximately `20 crores and that in all there are
143 claimants of plots in the said Yojana.
7. The appellants have filed a rejoinder inter alia stating that some
roads, electricity poles, boundary walls, entry gate exist at site; that the most
logical and legitimate approach on the part of the Official Liquidator would
be to demarcate the plots and release the same to the appellants. Some
photographs of site have also been filed.
8. We have enquired whether the aforesaid 143 claimants of the plots in
the said Yojana constitute the entire body of plot holders in the said Yojana
/ proposed colony. The answer is in the negative. Rather, we are told that
considering the size of the land, the said 143 persons and of whom only 60
are before us, would constitute a minority of the total land. That being the
position, the question of entrusting the development of the entire land /
project comprising of vast land other than which the appellants have agreed
to purchase and which belongs to the company in liquidation, does not arise.
No concrete proposal also has been placed before us as to development.
The counsel for the Official Liquidator has rightly contended that the
appellants being the purchasers of handful of plots, cannot be expected to
bear the development cost of the entire land.
9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the relief sought by the appellants
cannot be granted. The photographs filed also do not show that the plots
which the appellants claim to have been sold to them are identifiable at site.
The directions as sought by the appellants to the Official Liquidator are
impractical. Several authorities will have to be approached for sanctions
and the entire business of colonization will have to be carried out and all of
which the Official Liquidator is not equipped to do.
10. We are however of the view that since the appellants have been found
to be bona fide purchasers and even Sale Deeds exist in their favour, at the
time of putting the land / Project to auction, the learned Company Judge
should, without undermining the value of the land / Project, explore the
possibility of doing the same on as is where is basis i.e. with the highest
bidder acquiring the Project with commitments in favour of the appellants.
Having observed so, we may say that if the appellants contend that they are
liable to pay no more to the purposed buyer of the land / Project, the same
will undoubtedly depress the value of the land and which would be to the
detriment of the other creditors of the company in liquidation. Even in law,
the appellants cannot be said to be entitled to a developed plot at the price
which they claim to have paid. In the last over two decades, the cost of
development has multiplied manifold. If the appellants are to be considered
for being passed on with the land to the purchasers thereof, they have to
shell out more money, may be not equivalent to the prevalent price but
something less than that. It may also act as an incentive to the purchaser
who will get a ready stock of customers / purchasers. It is up to the
appellants to put up a proposal in this regard before the learned Company
Judge and all that we can observe is that the learned Company Judge, if
finds the same to be workable may consider the same. We have made this
suggestion since it is found that the refund of the price paid with interest at
4% per annum allowed by the learned Company Judge is not sufficient and
the learned Company Judge also being aware of the same has reserved the
right of the appellants to compensation.
11. Save for the aforesaid observations, the appeal is dismissed.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
'gsr'
