Dismissed

Icici Bank Ltd. v. Maheshwari Mills Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Feb 2009NMS/2235/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a notice of motion regarding property subject to a suit involving a company in liquidation, the court directed the Official Liquidator to obtain directions from the Gujarat High Court and complete survey formalities before disposing of the assets. Sale proceeds were restrained from disbursement until further orders.

What did the court decide?

Costs directed to be barred; property to be measured and surveyed by the Official Liquidator upon directions from the Gujarat High Court prior to disposal.

Icici Bank Ltd. Vs Maheshwari Mills Ltd. and Ors. — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2235 OF 2003

¶5

IN

¶6

SUIT NO.2332 of 2003

¶7

 ICICI Bank Limited ... Plaintiff

¶8

 Versus

¶9

 Maheshwari Mills Limited & Ors. Defendants

¶10

 Mr. Chetan Kapadia with Mr. Sachin Chandarana and Mr.
 Swayam Chopda i/b. Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co.Advocates
 for the Plaintiff.

¶11

 Mr. R.K.Gandhi for Defendant No.1.

¶12

 Mr. G.G.Ketkar, 1st Assistant to Court Receiver present.

¶13

CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J.

¶14

 DATE: 5th February, 2009.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

 1. On 13th January, 2009, I had recorded the

¶17

 statement of Mr. Gandhi, learned Advocate appearing for
 the Official Liquidator attached to the Gujarat High
 Court and thereafter adjourned the matter so as to

¶18

¶19

 enable him to take instructions.

¶20

 2. Mr. Gandhi has placed on record a letter dated
 27th January, 2009 addressed to him by the Official
 Liquidator, High Court of Gujarat (taken on record and
 marked "X").

¶21

 3. As far as the property described at page 30 of the
 plaint in the present suit, the Liquidator states as
 under :-

¶22

 "Regarding order dated 13.01.2009 passed by the
 Hon’ble Bombay High Court, I have to state that
 the properties described at page-30 of the plaint
 are the land bearing survey numbers 306 (1 to
 5),303, 304/5, 305,306, 307/A and 307/B at Mouje
 Dariapur, whereas the description of the
 properties sold by this office is land bearing
 survey numbers 323 part, 324 and 327A part and
 327B part, apart from factory building and plant &
 machineries. Therefore, it is clear that the land
 at Survey numbers as mentioned on page-30 of the

¶23

 plaint are not sold by this office. In this
 connection, it is however, to be clarified that
 the revenue survey numbers of the land are
 converted into City survey numbers and final plot

¶24

¶25

 No.110 in T.P. Scheme No.14 has been

¶26

 reconstituted comprising various City Survey

¶27

 Numbers. The corresponding city survey numbers
 for the land of revenue survey numbers sold by
 this office are C.S. numbers 2980, 2981. The
 original survey No. 306 forming part of
 properties mentioned on page-30 of the plaint is
 included in final plot no.110 and its new city
 survey number are 2991 and 3023 over which there
 is already construction of industrial sheds.
 Further out of the final plot No.110 there is a
 deduction of 2199 sq. mtrs. of land for the road
 of T.P. Scheme. Therefore the land described on
 page-30 of the plaint cannot be sold unless the
 corresponding city survey numbers for the revenue
 survey numbers are ascertained and actual
 measurement of land as available on the site with
 proper map of its boundaries and markings of
 location and possession details are obtained.
 Therefore, it would be necessary for the Court
 Receiver to get this exercise done before moving
 the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat seeking leave
 U/s. 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 for sale of
 the said properties. You are therefore requested
 to please make submissions before the Hon’ble
 Bombay High Court accordingly."

¶28

¶29

 Thus, this property is yet to be sold. There are
 difficulties pointed out by the Official Liquidator and
 he has stated that upon same being removed, this
 property can be disposed of.

¶30

 4. Mr. Kapadia appearing for the plaintiff states
 that Court Receiver has been appointed by this Court.
 The Court Receiver could not take possession as the
 plaintiff and the Court Receiver were under an erroneous
 belief that the Official Liquidator has taken possession
 of this property. Now, with this clarification, and
 considering that the plaintiff has obtained leave under
 Section 446 of the Companies Act to proceed with the
 present suit, the Court Receiver may be directed to
 carry out measurement and survey with the assistance of
 the local authority in Gujarat and thereafter dispose of
 the property with leave and sanction of the Gujarat High
 Court.

¶31

 5. In my view, since the Court Receiver has not taken
 possession of the property and further the defendant
 No.1 being wound up and is under liquidation so also the
 assets and property is of the Company which is in

¶32

¶33

 liquidation, it would be desirable and in the interest
 of justice that the Official Liquidator carries out the
 aforesaid steps after obtaining such orders and
 directions from the Gujarat High Court as are necessary
 in law and thereafter take possession of the subject
 property. The Official Liquidator can also seek further
 directions to dispose of this property.

¶34

 6. In case the property is disposed of, the Official
 Liquidator not to disburse the sale proceeds until
 further orders and directions of this Court. The
 plaintiff can also seek leave of the Gujarat High Court
 and place before the said High Court the proposals
 received and other documents with regard to the subject
 property. Needless to state that this order in no case
 shall be construed as this Court in any manner directing
 disposal of the property of the company in liquidation.
 The order is passed to facilitate the Official
 Liquidator and the plaintiff so also the debenture
 trustees/others concerned with them to dispose of the
 property after obtaining necessary directions from the
 Gujarat High Court,of course, the Receiver will be a
 party to the proceedings in that behalf.

¶35

 Notice of Motion is disposed of. No costs.

¶36

¶37

 (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J.)

Icici Bank Ltd. v. Maheshwari Mills Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Ltd. v. Maheshwari Mills Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binaifer Xerxes Randeria Vs Xerxes Kurush Randeria

Miss Norma Carneio Alphonso and Anr. Vs Dr.Kenneth Carneiro Alphonso

Jayantilal Purnamal Agrawal and 19 Ors. Vs Mrs. Smiley Gonsalves and 8 Ors.

Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. Vs the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. and 2 Ors.

M/S.Vaidya Patwardhan and Co. Vs M/S. Sandu Products (Halol) and 3 Ors. and Ghanshyam Shankar Sandu

saroj prakash mahadik Vs venketesh r. shetye and Ors.