Delhi High Court
Worldlink Finance Ltd. vs Regency Industries Ltd. on 11 January, 2013
Author: S. Muralidhar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#5
+ CO.PET. 281 of 1996
WORLDLINK FINANCE LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Vibhu Bakhru, Senior Advocate with
Mr. P. Nagesh and Mr. Rajat Arora, Advocates for
Propounder of Scheme.
versus
REGENCY INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Mayank Goel, Advocate for the
Official Liquidator.
Mr. Shiv K.Tyagi, Advocate for State Bank of
Patiala.
Mr. Hem C. Vashisht with Mr. Gaurav Sharma and
Ms. Pooja Sharma, Advocates for Applicant in Co.
Application 1177 of 2012.
Mr. K.K. Rai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Krishnanand Pandey and Mr. Amrendra
Kumar Choubey, Advocates for GDA.
Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate for Co.
Applications 2167, 2169, 2170 of 2012.
Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advocate for Applicants in CA
No. 2182, 2507, 2506 of 2012.
Mr. Anil K. Khaware, Advocate for Applicant in
CA No. 2234 of 2012.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
ORDER
% 11.01.2013
Co. Application No. 2132 of 2012 (filed by Propounder for clarification
of the Scheme of Arrangement)
1. Mr. K.K. Rai, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Ghaziabad
Development Authority ('GDA') refers to the counter affidavit dated 2nd
November 2012 filed by the GDA, in which in para 18, it states as under:
"18. In reply of para 18, it is stated that scheme of arrangement
as shown in Annexure P-7 provided by the Applicant, that is
statement, is not acceptable to the answering Respondent. The
fact is that allotment in favour of M/s. Regency Industries
Limited by Ghaziabad Development Authority, had been
cancelled and eviction order has been passed by the competent
authority under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupant, 1972), this fact was brought to the
notice of this Hon'ble Court in deponent's earlier affidavit and
if company wants to get allotment of this land after revival then
as per the Government Order No. 4049/9-aa-1-99/16
committee/98 dated 20th November 1999, will be done on the
75 per cent of the prevailing market rate or authority sector rate
which one is higher. Answering Respondent authority is
working under the supervisory control of State Government
under Section 41 of U.P. Urban Planning & Development Act,
1973 so that authority can only restore the allotment in
accordance with the Government Orders. There have been
number of such cases where allotment has been restored as
mentioned above."
2. In a reply the above counter affidavit of the GDA, the propounders of
Scheme, Mr. Vinod Pal Singh and Deep Sons, point out that there were
earlier two affidavits filed by the GDA, on 5th February 2007 and 27th June
2008, wherein GDA informed the Court that it had no objection to the
property in question, Plot No. 12, Vaishali Yojna, being sold by way of
public auction as long as the outstanding dues of the GDA are repaid
together with penal interest @ 18% per annum till the actual date of
payment. The reply affidavit also refers to the letter dated 29th March 1991
written by GDA to the Allahabad Bank conveying it no objection to
mortgaging of rights and interest of the plot in favour of the Allahabad Bank
"provided the total amount of the premium together with interest thereon, if
any and 10% of the premium as lease rent of the plot for 90 years is paid to
the authority."
3. It is seen that in para 18 of the counter affidavit of GDA dated 2nd
November 2012 GDA made a reference to the Government Order ('GO')
dated 20th November 1999 which requires it to recover at least 75% of the
current market rate value of the plot or the value arrived at by applying the
sector rate notified by the GDA itself. However, it is seen that both the
affidavits dated 5th February 2007 and 27th June 2008 were filed subsequent
to the said GO. In para 16 of its affidavit dated 5th February 2007 GD was
categorically stated that it had no objection to the sale of the property by
public auction as long as it was able to recover the dues together with penal
interest at 18% per annum. The said stand was reiterated by the GDA in its
subsequent affidavit 27th June 2008. It is on the basis of the above affidavits
that further orders were be passed by the Court for valuation of the property.
Several steps have been taken in respect of the company which is already in
liquidation. GDA must be presumed to have filed two consecutive affidavits
in 207 and 2008 after considering the aforementioned GO. In that view of
the matter, GDA's attempt to resile from that stand, five years later, cannot
be permitted. GDA's objections to the propounded scheme in para 18 of its
affidavit dated 2nd November 2012 are rejected and GDA is held bound by
the stand conveyed in the earlier affidavits dated 5th February 2007 and 27th
June 2008.
4. Mr. Vibhu Bakhru, learned Senior counsel appearing for the propounders,
states that the payment will now be paid to the GDA of the outstanding
amount together with 18% as panel interest within a period of two weeks.
5. Mr. Rajeev Arora, husband of the one of the investors, who is present in
person states that her claim has been adjudicated by the OL. The OL has left
the question of payment of interest to the Court.
6. Mr. Bakhru states, on instructions, that the propounder will pay 8%
simple interest on the principal amount deposited by the investors up to the
date of payment. The payment of the principal and interest amount will be
made in four equal quarterly instalments, commencing from 30th day of the
effective date. The investors who are in Categories 'C' and 'D' of the
Nainital Project will also be paid similar rate of interest. The propounded
scheme will now stand modified in the above terms.
7. The State Bank of Patiala ('SBOP'), one of the secured creditors, has
filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal ('DRT')-II in Delhi
against the Respondent company. Mr. Bakhru states that dues of the SBOP
will be dealt with independent of the present proceedings. Learned counsel
for the SBOP submits likewise. The said statements are placed n record.
8. With the above modification, the scheme propounded by Mr. Vinod Pal
Singh and Deep Sons is sanctioned. It is however made clear that this is
subject to the propounded paying the GDA its dues as stated above and the
investors the amounts due it in terms of the above modification. The
application is disposed of.
Co. Application Nos. 2167, 2169 and 2170 of 2012 (filed by Mr. M.V.
Singh, Mrs. Geetanjali Singh and Mr. Anuj Singh)
9. These are applications by individual investors in the Vaishali project. It is
seen that in para 5.2 (e) (A) of the Scheme of Arrangement, the Propounder
proposes to repay to the flat allottees at Vaishali the principal amount
originally invested in four quarterly instalments, commencing from 30th day
of the effective date.
10. The applicants in Co. Application Nos. 2167, 2169, 2170 of 2012 are
also investors in the Vaishali Yojna. However, these three applicants have
not yet filed their claims before the OL. Considering that they are individual
investors who have not filed their claims yet for bonafide reasons, the delay
in their filing their respective claims is condoned and they are now permitted
to file their respective claims with the OL positively within two weeks from
today. The claims when filed will be decided by the OL in accordance with
law and the decision communicated to the Propounders. Payments of the
sums found due will be made by the Propounders in terms of the Scheme as
sanctioned above. The applications are disposed of. With the completion of
the above exercise, the OL will stand discharged.
Co. Application No. 1177 of 2012 (filed by Ms. Nidhi Dayal)
11. This application stands covered by the order dated 9th November 2012
passed by this Court. The application is disposed of.
Co. Application No. 1466 of 2012 (filed by Propounder)
12. Mr. Bakhru, learned Senior counsel for the Applicant/Propounder seeks
permission to withdraw the application with liberty to file a fresh application
if the circumstances so warrant. Accordingly, this application is dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
Co. Application No. 2036 of 2012 (filed by OL)
13. Payment be made to the security agencies as proposed by the OL from
the fund of the Common Pool Fund, OL. The application is disposed of.
Co. Application No. 2234 of 2011 (filed by Mrs. Meera Sen)
14. This is an application filed by Mrs. Meera Sen stating that she had
applied for an allotment of flat in Nainital project. Her claim has been
examined by the Nainital Committee and her claim has been adjudicated for
a sum of Rs. 2,64,525. The applicant states that she should be paid Rs.
8,20,712 that had been ordered in her favour by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Lucknow.
15. Mrs. Sen is a claimant in the liquidation proceedings and cannot be
expected to be treated differently for other similarly placed claimants
notwithstanding she has an order in her favour from the DCDRF, Lucknow.
Accordingly, the application is disposed of by directing that the OL will
adjudicate her claim in terms of the Scheme that has been sanctioned. She
will be entitled to simple interest at 8% per annum till the date of payment.
Co. Application No. 2182 of 2012
16. Learned counsel for the Applicant seeks permission to withdraw this
application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn.
Co. Application Nos. 2506 of 2012 & 2177 of 2012 (filed by Mr. Chandra
Singh Duggal, Co. Application No. 2507 of 2012 (filed by Mr. Ashok
Logani)
17. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that these application should
also be disposed of in terms of the order dated 9th November 2012 in CA
Nos. 2037, 2163, 2164 of 2012. The applications are disposed of
accordingly.
18. All the pending applications are disposed of.
S. MURALIDHAR, J
JANUARY 11, 2013
Rk
