Partly allowed

Safeeya Begum v. Sirsilk Limited. (in liquidation)

Telangana HC9 Apr 2014COMPA/283/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of multiple Company Applications regarding the execution of sale deeds forquarters allotted to deceased workmen. Sale deeds were directed to be executed for applicants whose legal representative status was verified, dismissing those lacking requisite documentation without prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Sale deeds to be executed in favour of verified applicants; applications of non-compliant applicants dismissed without prejudice.

Safeeya Begum Vs Sirsilk Limited. (in liquidation) — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.269, 270, 271, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277,

¶2

279, 280, 283, 285, 286, 289, 292, 293, 294, 298, 299, 300,

¶3

301, 302, 304 and 337 of 2014 Date:09.04.2014

¶4

COMPANY APPLICATION No.269 of 2014

¶5

Between:

¶6

A.G.Sudharshanam, S/o Late A.M.Williams

¶7

..... Applicant

¶8

And

¶9

Sirsilk Limited (in liquidation), Reptd by the Official Liquidator, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶10

.....Respondent

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Divya Datta

¶12

For Sri V.Vykuntha Rao

¶13

Counsel for the respondent: Sri M.Anil Kumar

¶14

The Court made the following:

¶15

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.269, 270, 271, 274, 275, 276, 277,

¶16

279, 280, 283, 283, 289, 292, 293, 294, 298, 299, 300, 301,302, 305 and 337 of 2014

¶17

COMMON ORDER:

¶18

In all these Company Applications, the applicants have prayed for an order to direct the Official Liquidator to execute the sale deeds conveying the respective quarters to them as the legal representatives of the deceased workmen, in whose favour orders were already passed by this Court allotting the quarters.

¶19

The Deputy Official Liquidator has filed a common

¶20

report, dated 04.04.2014, wherein he has classified the applicants into two categories as shown in Annexures-A and B. In Annexure-A, he has included the twenty (20) applicants in Company Application Nos.269, 270, 271, 273, 274, 276, 279, 280, 283, 285, 289, 292, 294, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 305 and 337 of 2014. He has stated that as the applicants in these Company Applications have satisfied their status as the legal representatives of the deceased-workmen/allottees of the respective quarters, he will execute the sale deed, subject to the order that may be passed by this Court.

¶21

In the light of the above report, the Deputy Official Liquidator is permitted to execute the sale deeds in favour of the applicants included in Annexure-A, subject to the latter complying with the requirements for registration.

¶22

Company Application Nos.269, 270, 271, 273, 274, 276, 279, 280, 283, 285, 289, 292, 294, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 305 and 337 of 2014 are, accordingly, allowed.

¶23

With regard to the applicants in Company Application Nos.275, 277, 286 and 293 of 2014 included in Annexure-B, it is stated that the required documents to establish their status as the legal representatives of the deceased-workmen/allottees have not been filed.

¶24

In view of the same, the four applicants included in Annexure-B, i.e., the applicants in Company Application Nos.275, 277, 286 and 293 of 2014, are left with the liberty to approach the Deputy Official Liquidator afresh by producing the required documents, after removing the defects mentioned in the remarks column of Annexure-B.

¶25

Subject to the liberty given to the applicants as above, Company Application Nos.275, 277, 286 and 293

¶26

of 2014 are dismissed.

¶27

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 09^th April 2014 DR

Safeeya Begum v. Sirsilk Limited. (in liquidation)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Safeeya Begum v. Sirsilk Limited. (in liquidation)

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

M/s. Curepro Parenterals Limited, Vs -

The Official Liquidator Vs DT.01-04-2012 to 30-09-2012.

M/s Aurobindo Pharma Ltd, Vs -

The Official Liquidator Vs DT.01-04-2012 to 30-09-2012.

The Administrator of the Specified Undertaking of the Vs M/s Allwyn Watches Limited (in Liquidation)

G. Gurootham Vs Sirsilk Limited. (in liquidation)