Disposed

Maxworth Orchards Ltd. v. v.Madusudhan Rao

Madras HC20 Sept 2023COMP.A/1718/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application to set aside sale deeds was dismissed without adjudication on merits as facts were unclear. The court closed the matter conditionally, requiring the Official Liquidator to file a fresh application with proper documents.

What did the court decide?

Application closed conditionally to allow filing of appropriate application after ascertaining facts and obtaining necessary documents.

Maxworth Orchards Ltd. Vs v.Madusudhan Rao — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Comp.A.No.1718 of 2008 in C.P.No.57 of 1998

¶2

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

¶3

This application is filed to set aside the sale deeds bearing Document No.1371/2004 dated 06.02.2004 in respect of 3 acres of land in Survey No.191/24 in Kollur Village, R.C.Puram Mandal, Medak District, Telangana.

¶4

Learned Administrator submits that, out of 3 acres in the above mentioned survey number, about 2.75 acres was conveyed to customers of the company-in-liquidation through the power of attorney. She further submits that the company-in-liquidation is unable to identify the remaining 0.25 acres.

¶5

Learned counsel for the legal heirs of the deceased third respondent submits that the said respondent purchased lands in Survey No.191, more particularly Plot No.24 therein. By drawing reference to GPA No.173/1991, he points out that the power of attorney was granted in respect of Plot No.25 in Survey No.191 and not in respect of Plot No.24. He also points out that the sale deeds on which reliance is placed by the Official Liquidator and learned Administrator relate to Plot No.25 and not Plot No.24.

¶6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶7

1/4

¶8

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

¶9

kal

¶10

In view of the above submissions, the present application cannot

¶11

be adjudicated on merits because the facts are unclear. Consequently, this application is closed by leaving it open to the Official Liquidator to file an appropriate application, after obtaining all necessary documents and ascertaining the correct factual position.

¶12

20.09.2023

¶13

kal

¶14

Comp.A.No.1718 of 2008 in C.P.No.57 of 1998

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

2/4

¶17

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

¶18

rna

¶19

Comp.A.Nos.140, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 160, 167, 168, 164, 165, 157, 158, 159, 169, 141, 161, 162, 163, 166, 154, 155, 156 of 2022 in C.P.No.57 of 1998

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

3/4

¶22

29.04.2022

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

4/4

Maxworth Orchards Ltd. v. v.Madusudhan Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maxworth Orchards Ltd. v. v.Madusudhan Rao

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

Hindustan Unilever Limiter Formerly knwon as Hindustan Lever Limited Vs The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks

Laticrete International, Inc. Vs The Registrar of Trade Marks

Huawei Technologies Co.Ltd Vs The Controller of Patents

Sri Guggila Krishna Vs M/s.Sri Krishna Jewellers

Sri Guggila Krishna Vs Sri Krishna Jewellers

Sri Guggila Krishna Vs Sri Krishna Jewellers