Allowed

The Official Liquidator of Swadeshi Mills Company Ltd. (in Liquidation) v. B. I. F. R.

Bombay HC12 Oct 2022OLR/101/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This interim application dealt with an Official Liquidator's Report seeking permission to appoint a panel valuer to assess company property under new DCR 2034 regulations. The court allowed the report, permitting the valuation and payment of fees, and disposed of the accompanying interim application.

What did the court decide?

The Official Liquidator's Report was allowed; he was permitted to appoint a panel valuer and pay fees from company funds. The Interim Application was disposed of. Liberty granted if difficulties arise

The Official Liquidator of Swadeshi Mills Company Ltd… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

Digitally signed SWAROOPSHARAD by SWAROOPSHARADPHADKE PHADKE Date: 2022.10.1317:21:59 +0530

¶2

28 ial 21518 of 2022.doc

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.21518 OF 2022
IN

¶4

COMPANY PETITION NO.385 OF 2002

¶5

M/s. Tatanagar Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.

¶6

Applicant

¶7

and

¶8

Board of Industrial and Finance Restructure …Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Official Liquidator of M/s. Swadeshi
Mills Co. Ltd. and Ors.

¶11

...
Respondents

¶12

WITH

¶13

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR’S REPORT NO.101 OF 2022

¶14

IN

¶15

COMPANY PETITION NO.385 OF 2002

¶16

Mr. Rahul Singh with Ms. Pranali Raut, Ms. Varsha Salunkhe i/by Mr. Prashant
Patnaik, for Applicant.

¶17

Mr. Aditya Pimple, for Official Liquidator.

¶18

Ms. Farzeen C. Pardiwalla i/by Ms. Anvi Arsiwala, for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Shehzad A.K.Najam-es-sani i/by Maneksha and Sethna, for Respondent No.3.
Ms. Shilpa Redkar for MCGM.

¶19

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

¶20

DATE:12th OCTOBER, 2022

¶21

P.C.:

¶22

1.Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶23

2. The learned Counsel for the Applicant, at present, restricts the prayer in

¶24

the Interim Application to prayer clause (a) which reads as under :

¶25

“(a)The Hon’ble Court be pleased to order and direct the learned
Official Liquidator to comply with the orders dated 02.01.2020 passed by this
Hon’ble Court in Company Application No.342 of 2013 within a stipulated
time limit as deem fit and proper in the interest of justice;”

¶26

SSP 1/4

¶27

28 ial 21518 of 2022.doc

¶28

3.In paragraph No.12 of the order dated 02.01.2020, of which the

¶29

Applicant seeks implementation, reads as under :

¶30

“12.The Official Liquidator is directed to submit a report after
considering the subsequent events and after considering the effect of the
provisions of D.C.Regulation 2034 and shall seek further directions from
this Court about the mode and manner of disposal of the mill land. The
Official Liquidator is directed to file the report within three months from
today. A copy thereof shall be served upon the applicants as well as the
secured creditors and MHADA. Further directions would be issued by this
Court after hearing all the parties.”

¶31

4.The Official Liquidator has taken out Official Liquidator’s Report
No.101 of 2022 seeking inter alia the following directions :

¶32

“(a)In view of this, whether this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
permit the Official Liquidator to request M/s. Shetgiri and Associates, Panel
Valuer appointed in the subject matter, to consider the effect of the DCPR,
regulations 2034, and to submit the valuation report to enable the Official
Liquidator to proceed further in the matter.

¶33

(b)Whether this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the
Official Liquidator to make payment of professional fees of M/s. Shetgiri
and Associates, valuer amounting to Rs.3,83,500/- as per the invoice and to
make further payment as per the invoice to be raised by M/s. Shetgiri and
Associates out of fund lying to the credit of company ( in liqn.)”

¶34

5.The learned Counsel for the Official Liquidator submits that afresh

¶35

valuation of the property of the company in liquidation is warranted as the
Development Control Regulations 2034 (DCR 2034) bear upon the use of the mill
lands which affects the value of the property of the company in liquidation. It was

¶36

SSP 2/4

¶37

28 ial 21518 of 2022.doc

¶38

further submitted that there is no clarity as to whether the relevant parts of the DCR
2034 have been brought in force. Attention of the Court is invited to the Notification
dated 13th April, 2022, whereby the amended Development Control Regulations have
been brought into force after one month of the publication of the said Notification in
the Maharashtra Government Gazette.

¶39

6.The learned Counsel for the MCGM seeks time to take instructions
about the date of the enforcement of the DCR 2034.

¶40

7.In any event, there does not seem to be any impediment in appointing
the panel valuer to carry out afresh valuation of the property of the company in
liquidation. Even the learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant
has no objection to the said course of action. Panel Valuer would, of course, consider
the effect of DCR 2034 in ascertaining the value of the property of the company in
liquidation.

¶41

8.Hence, the Official Liquidator’s Report stands allowed in terms of prayer
clauses (a) and (b) reproduced above.

¶42

9.In view of the disposal of the Official Liquidator’s Report, Interim
Application also stands disposed.

¶43

10.Liberty to the Official Liquidator to move the Court in the event there is
any difficulty in arriving at the valuation of the property on account of any discrepancy
being pointed out by the valuer appointed by the Court.

¶44

SSP

¶45

28 ial 21518 of 2022.doc

¶46

11.The Official Liquidator shall file further report no sooner the valuation

¶47

report is received from the valuer.

¶48

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

¶49

SSP

The Official Liquidator of Swadeshi Mills Company Ltd. (in Liquidation) v. B. I. F. R.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Official Liquidator of Swadeshi Mills Company Ltd. (in Liquidation) v. B. I. F. R.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrityunjay K. Singh and 8 Other Vs M. v. Pfs Courage and 2 Other

The Board of Trustees of Pot of Mumbai Vs M.v.Kamal Xxxiv and Anr.

United India Marine Services and 2 Ors. Vs M v Halani 6 (Imo No. 9165906) and 2 Ors.

Nitin a Vaidya and 5 Ors. Vs the Official Liquidator of Zadona Electronics Limited (in Liqn)

Prashant H Goradia Vs the Custodian

Satish Vasant Ghatge Vs the State of Maharashtra