(Through Hybrid Mode) vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 11734 Ori

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                    CMPAT No. 4 of 2002
                    (Through Hybrid Mode)
ABS Spinning Orissa            .....                         Petitioner
                                                 Mr. S.S. Das, Senior
                                                            Advocate

                             Vs.
                                   .....               Opposite Parties

                                           Ms. Pami Rath, Advocate
                                                           IDCOL

                                                Mr. Bidyadhar Mishra
                                                 Senior Advocate for
                                                           intervener

                                            Mr. Debakanta Mohanty,
                                              Addl. Govt. Advocate

                                         Mr. Satya Smruti Mohanty,
                                                Advocate for IPCOL

                                                Mr. Ananta Ku. Sethi,
                                                Advocate for Official
                                                          Liquidator

                    CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

                                    ORDER

15.11.2021 Order No.

149.

1. Mr. Das, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, by order no.59 dated 5th January, 2007 passed in Misc. Case no.1 of 2007 made in CMPAT no.4 of 2002 [A.B.S. Spinning Orissa Limited. (in liquidation)], there was direction by the Company Court,

// 2 //

inter alia, for transfer of Sonepur Spinning Mill in favour of Rajshree Vanijya Private Limited and Phiroja Vinmoy Private Limited. Deed of transfer was to be executed by Director named in said order. Court has ascertained that the company (in liquidation) is a Govt. Company.

2. Mr. Das refers to order dated 13th April, 2007 passed by the Company Court in winding up of the company (in liquidation), wherein submission made on behalf Industrial Development Corporation, Odisha (IDCO) was recorded to be that Collectors of respective districts have been moved to accord approval for such transfer. There was direction that State accord permission for, inter alia, transfer of Sonepur Unit, in favour of purchasers within two weeks from date of production of certified copy of that order.

3. The liquidation proceeding continued and there was order dated 1st August, 2012, made also by the Company Court, directing, inter alia, as follows:-

"xx xx After hearing learned counsel for the parties and the Tahasildar, Sonepur, this Court directs the Tahasildar, Sonepur to transmit the relevant mutation applications along with the report of the R.I. and the order of this Court so communicated to him from time to time to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Sonepur. On receipt of which, the Assistant Settlement Officer shall take step for correction of the records within a period of two months thereafter."

He refers to order dated 17th October, 2012 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer, FP & PD Camp, Sambalpur, rejecting his client's application for mutation on grounds mainly that no sale deed had been produced and some

// 3 //

portion of land involves interest of so many people, who are residing there. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in B. Arvind Kumar vs. Government Of India reported in (2007) 5 SCC 745, paragraph 12. He submits, the Court declared, it is well settled that when an auction purchaser derives title on confirmation of sale in his favour and sale certificate is issued evidencing such sale and title, no further deed of transfer from the Court is contemplated or required.

4. He submits, the sale, inter alia, in respect of Sonepur Unit was by said orders of Court. They do not require registration under the Registration Act, 1908. There should be direction for forthwith correction of the records. He relies on rule 34 in Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962, clause-(c), which says, inter alia, correction may be made if founded on a decree or order of a Civil Court or on the order of any competent authority, the entry not being in accordance with such decree or order.

5. Mr. Bidyadhar Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of intervener and submits, his client has filed application for intervention. He submits, admittedly 60 acres of land is reserve forest. It could not have been transferred to the purchasers. Ms. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of IDCOL and submits her client's position is, the sale should be completed. Mr. D. Mohanty, learned advocate, Addl. Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, petitioner's challenge to order dated 17th October, 2012 made by the Assistant Settlement Officer has to first to be dealt with before any other order in the proceeding can be

// 4 //

made.

6. There is no dispute that petitioners' have assailed said order of Assistant Settlement Officer, by an application to be dealt with by this Court under sub-section (2) in section 446 of Companies Act, 1956. As things stand, it appears that order dated 17th October, 2012 has not been founded on law. State will be heard in support of the order, if that is its instruction.

7. So far as contention of person wanting to intervene is concerned it appears the challenge is against the sale, long been confirmed in favour of petitioners. The intervention application I.A. no. 5 of 2021 is dismissed.

8. The application in respect of transfer of the Sonepur Unit will be finally dealt with and disposed of on adjourned date.

9. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of two persons who claim to be purchasers from State in respect of plots of land included in the lands claimed by petitioners to have been purchased by them.

10. By consent, list on 3rd December, 2021 at 2:00 P.M.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Prasant