A company application moved by office owners to remove the Official Liquidator's possession over premises previously licensed to the liquidated company was disposed of after the directors returned possession.
Applicants permitted to remove the notice and seal of the Official Liquidator from the premises.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
924-CA311-13+.DOC
Agk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 388 OF 2013
IN
COMPANY PETITION NO. 55 OF 2011 ALONG WITH
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR’S REPORT
Mr. Ashok H. Bhatia and Another
…Applicants
Versus
The Official Liquidator of M/s. Victory Genset
Private Limited
…Respondents
Mr. S.S. Dube, i/by M/S. Lex Conveniens, for the Applicants.
Ms. Yogini Chauhan, Assistant Official Liquidator, is present.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 7th May 2014
PC:-
1.This is an application by the owners of office premises on the
5th floor of the Peninsula Plaza, Andheri. According to the
applicants, they own these premises. They purchased them in 2006
under a registered conveyance. The Company in liquidation occupied
these premises under a leave and licence agreement dated 2nd
February 2012. This was also registered.
1 of 3
924-CA311-13+.DOC
2.On 12th March 2012, the Company was ordered to be wound
up. The Official Liquidator stood appointed. On 25th November
2013, the Company’s director delivered possession of these premises
to the applicants. This was done after the appointment of the Official
Liquidator and after this Company Application was filed.
3.Mr Dube, learned advocate for the applicants, is justified in his
submission that nothing survives in the Company Application. When
this application was first moved in November 2013, perhaps the fact
that the Company had only been a licensee of these premises and was
not the owner of these premises was not sufficiently clarified. It is
perhaps for that reason that the order dated 23rd November 2013
came to be passed and the Liquidator was continued in symbolic
possession of these premises. I do not see anything untoward in the
directors returning possession of these premises of which the
Company was a mere licensee and nothing further. Certainly, it
should not be that because the Company has gone into liquidation,
therefore,the owner of the premises should suffer and should not be
able to let out the premises again or give them on leave and licence
basis to other parties. There is no reason why the owner of licensed
premises should be put to such a loss on account of the Company’s
commercial insolvency. The premises are, after all, the property of a
third party, who has no concern with these winding up proceedings.
The property were rightly returned to the owner of the premises.
4.The Applicants are permitted to remove the notice and seal of
the Official Liquidator from these premises. These premises shall no
longer continued to be in symbolic possession of the Official
Liquidator or in custodia legis. Learned advocate for the applicants
states that all the movables in the premises have already been removed
and there are no movable items belonging to the Company in these
premises.
2 of 3
924-CA311-13+.DOC
5. Nothing survives in the Company Application. The Company Application is disposed of accordingly.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the company in liquidation has any further right over premises leased to it from a third-party owner.
Whether symbolic possession of the office premises should continue with the Official Liquidator.
Whether the owners are permitted to remove the Official Liquidator's notice and seal from the premises.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr. Ashok H. Bhatia and Another
The Official Liquidator of M/s. Victory Genset Private Limited
G. S. Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court