Dismissed¶13

Sushil Chandra Pal and 7 Others v. Bifr, through Its Secretary / Registrar and Another

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2025SPLAD/145/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: special appeal defective; Allahabad High Court; 2025:AHC:29081-DB; condonation of delay 122 days; ex-employees; company in liquidation; BIFR; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985; winding up; official liquidator; company flats; permission to purchase flat; retain flat; preferential right in auction; highest bidder; Company Judge; Misc. Application No.71 of 2024; order dated 19.09.2024; dismissal of appeal. Counsel: Ravi Kant and Vatsala for appellants; Kunal Ravi Singh for respondents.

What did the court decide?

Only condonation of the 122-day filing delay; no substantive relief on retaining or purchasing the flats or on a preferential right at auction. ¶13

Sushil Chandra Pal and 7 Others vs Bifr, through Its Secretary / Registrar and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Only condonation of the 122-day filing delay; no substantive relief on retaining or purchasing the flats or on a preferential right at auction.

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the 122-day delay in filing the special appeal should be condoned. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

The delay of 122 days in filing the appeal was condoned, the application being supported by an affidavit and considered on the reasons indicated therein.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

Continued possession of the Company's flats by the appellants after the B.I.F.R. winding-up order of 2003 and the appointment of the official liquidator in 2013 confers no right on them to retain the flats, seek preferential right at auction, or obtain the reliefs claimed in the petition.

¶10

Key takeaways

The prayer for a preferential right when the property is auctioned is contradictory to the plea itself, because in an auction there cannot be any preference; the property goes to the highest bidder, and preference can arise only if two persons are placed on the same pedestal.ratio¶11
No case for interference with the impugned order or for passing any further direction was made out, and accordingly the appeal was dismissed.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 145 of 2025 (Allahabad HC, Division Bench: Arun Bhansali, CJ and Kshitij Shailendra, J.; decided 3.3.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:29081-DB). Ex-employees of a company in liquidation (B.I.F.R. winding-up order of 2003 under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985; official liquidator appointed 2013) sought reversal of the Company Judge's order dated 19.09.2024 (Misc. Application No.71 of 2024) refusing permission to purchase/retain the company-owned flats they occupied, and preferential right at auction. Held: continued possession after winding-up confers no such right; in an auction no preference can exist since the highest bidder takes the property, preference arising only where two persons stand on the same pedestal. A 122-day filing delay was condoned. Appeal dismissed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29081-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 145 of 2025

¶4

Appellant :- Sushil Chandra Pal and 7 others Respondent :- BIFR, through its Secretary / Registrar and another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Kant, Vatsala Counsel for Respondent :- Kunal Ravi Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶6

This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by learned Company Judge in Misc. Application No.71 of 2024, whereby the application filed by the appellants seeking permission to purchase the flats in which the appellants were residing, has been rejected.

¶7

The appeal is barred by 122 days. An application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been filed.

¶8

For the reasons indicated in the application supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed.

¶9

The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶10

It is vehemently submitted by counsel for the appellants that the appellants are ex-employees of the Company in liquidation wherein the order was passed by B.I.F.R under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ordering for its winding up.

¶11

Submissions have been made that while in service, the appellants were staying in the flats of the Company and continued to remain in its possession, they have dues against the Company and, therefore, they may be permitted to retain the flats / purchase

¶12

the same / they may be given preferential right when the said flats are auctioned during the course of liquidation of the Company.

¶13

Learned Company Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the reference was made in the year 2003 by the B.I.F.R. and the official liquidator has been appointed for taking charge of the aforesaid Company in liquidation in the year 2013 and the purported claim pertaining to the flats be allotted to them, cannot be countenanced and consequently, passed the order for vacating the flats in question.

¶14

Counsel for the official liquidator has vehemently opposed the submissions. Submissions have been made that the flats in question have already been vacated by the appellants, who were permitted to reside in flats while they were in employment of the Company and, therefore, they apparently have no right. Submission have been made that insofar as the dues of the appellants, if any, are concerned, that would be taken care of by the official liquidator in accordance with law and they have no right over the property of the Company.

¶15

We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶16

The appellants except for claiming that they continue to remain in possession of the flats in question, have not been able to make out any case worth the name, to retain the flats, seek preferential right when the flats are put to auction. The mere fact that despite the fact that the Company was ordered to be wound up by the B.I.F.R. way back in the year 2003 and the official liquidator was appointed in the year 2013, the appellants continued to remain in possession of the flats of the Company, does not confer any right

¶17

on them to seek the reliefs as claimed in the petition.

¶18

Insofar as claiming preferential right while the property is auctioned, is concerned, the prayer made is contradictory to the plea itself inasmuch as in auction, there cannot be any preference as in case the appellants are highest bidders, they would get the property, further the preference can only be given, in case two persons are placed on the same pedestal.

¶19

In view of the above, no case for interference with the order impugned and/or passing any further direction is made out.

¶20

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

¶21

Order Date :- 3.3.2025 RK/ Jyotsana

¶22

(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sushil Chandra Pal and 7 Others v. Bifr, through Its Secretary / Registrar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Chandra Pal and 7 Others v. Bifr, through Its Secretary / Registrar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Jay Prakashthekedar vs Assistant Commissioner State Tax Mahoba

Subhanti Rai and 5 Others vs Committee of Management of Van Awadh Gram Shiksha Mandal District Mau and 19 Others

Chandrashekhar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Mustaq Ahmad vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

M/S. Aditya Traders vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

M/S Mahadevi Construction vs State of U.P. and Another