Company Application No. 1348 of 2005 · The High Court · 2025

This application coming on for orders, upon reading lte Judge's summons and the affidavit dated 16-04-2007 f iled by Sri M. Anil Kurrrar, Official Liquidator attached to High Court of Andhra Pradesh in support of the lompany Application and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. Surya Satish, Cour;el for Applicants. COMPA No.736 OF 2007 IN cP NO. 236 0F 1998 ln the mafter of the Companies Act, 19t;6 And ln the matter of M/s. Shree Jagannath Steels Limited, (in Liqn) Between:

1. Sri Jitendar Kumar {e!1a, S/o Guljari Lal Kedia, aged 36 years, Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.5-9-30/1/4/3, Road No.5, Basheerbrrgh, Hydeiabad. 2. Smt. Anita Kedia, Wo. Sri Jitendra Kumar Kedia, age:d about 36 years, Occ- Housewife, R/o. H.No.5-9-30111413, Road No.5, Bashere bagh, Hyderabad. ..APPLICANTS AND M/s. Sree Jagannath Steels Limited (ln Liqn.), Rep. By the Official Liquidator, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another. ...RESPONDENTS Apptication under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC R/w Rules 6 & I fo Company (Court) Rules, 1959 praying that this Court may be pleased to direct the Official Liquidator not to execute or register any document over the land admeasuling Ac,1.46 situated at Azhinjivakkam village, Pooneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District pending the main application. This application coming on for orders, upon reading the Judge's summons and the affidavit dated 16-04-2007 filed by Sri M. Anil Kumar, Official Liquidator attached to High Court of Andhra Pradesh in support of the Company Application and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. Surya Satish, Counsel for Applicants. COMPA No. 969 OF 2014 IN cP NO. Z-ae Or rssa ln the matter of the Companies Act, 1956 And ln the matter of M/s. Shree Jagannath Steels Limited, (in Liqn) Between: ed about 54 years, Sri Pramod Kumar Agarwal S/o. Late C.M. Agarwal, Occ: Ex-Managing Director of Shree Jagannath teels Limited, the respondent Company R/o. Flat No.003, H.No. 6-3-1238/15, Vishnu Building, Asif Avenue, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. Ag S ...PETITIONER AND M/s. Shree Jagannath Steels Limited (ln Liqn.), Rep. by the Official Liquidator, High Court, at Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Application under Rule 9 of Company (Court) Rules praying that this Court may be pleased to (i) Hon'ble court may be pleased to the winding up of M/s.Shree Jagannath Steels Limited permanently and consequently direct the Official Liquidator to handover all the records, assets and other movable and immovable properties belonging to M/s. Shree Jagannath Steels Limited to the applicant herein, This application coming on for orders, upon reading the Judge's summons and the affidavit dated 16-04-2007 filed by Sri M. Anil Kumar, Official Liquidator attached to High Court of Andhra Pradesh in sup,crrrt Application and upon hearing the arguments of liri representing Mrs. Nandini S. Bilolikar for Applicants. of the Satish, Company Counsel The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN COMPAI\Y APPLICATION Nos. 1348 OF 2005, 259- 561. 735 & 736 0F 2007 AND 969 0F 2014 IN COMPANY PETITION No.236 OF 1998 CON{MON ORDBR Heard Mr. M. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the Official t.iquidator in COMPA No.56l of 2007 and respondent in COMPA No.969 ol20l4, Mr, I . Surya Satish. learncd counsel for thc applicant in COMPA No.735 of 2007 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 in COMPA No.56l ol 2007, Mr. V.S. Ra.iu, leamed counscl lor the applicant in COMPA No.259 of 2007 and respondent in COMPA No.l348 of 2005 and Mr. Satish, leamed counsel representing Mrs. Nandini S. ll ilolikar, lcarned counsel lor thc applicant in COMPA No.969 of 2014 arrd respondent in COMPA No.56l of 2007.

2. Originally. all the above said Company Applications arise out of Company Petition No.236 of 1998 filcd under Scctions - 433 (c), 134 (l) (a) and 439 (l) (b) ofthe Companies Act, 1956 (for shorl 'Act, 1956'), seeking winding up of IWs. Shree Jagannath Stcels Limited (hercinafter referred to as "the Company"). 2 KLI COMPA No I348 of2005 & ,i lrin(ll'No236ot1998

3. It is thc case ol thc pctitioner-Company th,Lt. undcr a lease agreemcnt datcd l9-04-1995. it supplied various iternr ol cquipment to thc respondcnt-Compan\. involving a net linance o' 1s.70.00,000/-, on the lerms that thc respondcnt rvould pay a monthl.. casc rental of Rs. 1,58,200/- in advancc. 'l hc flrst instalmcnt LLr.dcr tho said agreement lell duc on l9-0.1-1995, and the last instalnr,.nt was agreed to bc paid on l9-03-2000. ln pursuance thcrcot, rh: rcspondent- Company had issued post-dated chequcs towards rhe monthly instalments. 'fhc record discloses that thc rcspondenr_-r 'ompany paid thc instalments only up to October, 1996. 'l'hercafi,i:. thc cheques prcsented fbr encashment ucrc dishonoured. lcading t., crrnination of thc lease agrccment b1' thc pctitioner. ns on lt).12-1998, the respondent stood indebtcd to the petitioncr a sum of l:.s.t2.23.592/-, besides interest at the rate ol'3070 pcr annutn n.ith r-,onthh rests as stipulated unclcr thc agreemcnt. Dcspite repoated leu_t'"s ol'demand (trxs.A3 to A7) and even alier admitting its liabilil in irs own correspondencc (lixs.A8 to A l0). the respondent faile,l ,rnd neglected to discharge 1hc said dues. A legal norice datcd 3l-01-l9tt (tix.A13), dulyserved on 09-02-1998 (Ex.Al4). also elicired no cor.rpliancc. 3 KL, J coMt^ No ll,lE o12005 & barch in c l, No 216 0f 1998

4. Thc winding-up pctition was admitted on 17.06.1999. Substituted service was alfccted and notice was publishcd. No objcctions rvere filed. An affidavit of cvidence by one Mr. S.R Ramcsh Babu was filed with exhibits (Ex.A I to A14). 'I'hc Company was held comrncrcially insolvcnt and thc Otllcial I-iquidator (OL) was appointed by this Court vide order dated 07.09.1999

5. Thc afbresaid Company Applications are filed by the applicants secking various relief\. The dctails of the same are as follows: S.No COMPA No Filed Reliefso t for 0t ot. The OL sought permission to sell the company's assets comprising Acs.7-48 situated at Sy.Nos.5i8, 5/15, 5/16, 5/20, 6t5, 7/3, 715, 716, 8/l to 10, 9/6 & 917, GNI Road. Alinjavakkam. Ponneri I'aluk, Thiruvallur District, l arnil Nadu. as a single lot by inviting sealed tenders. This Court, after approving the proposed tender notice, terms and conditions including a minimum upset pricc of Rs.56.88 lakhs, earnest money deposit of Rs.5 lakhs, and tendcr cost of Rs.1,000, permitted the OL to conduct the sale, open tcndcrs, negotiate bids, and secure 20yo ol thc highest bid amount at the time of opening- Pursuant thereto, an auction was held and by order dated 27.10.2006, this Court accepted the highest bid of Rs.23l lakhs made by Ir,Vs. Ramjee Leathers & Supplies. tt was subsequently brought to thc notice of the Court that an extent of Acs. 1.56 cents out of the auctioned land ovcr 4 Kll COMPA No llt8ol2005 6. hi.r h ( I'No216oflql8 02 259t(J',? M/s. Leathers Supplies I{arnjee & 03 56r/()7 ot. 04 735,',0'] Mr- Jitcndcr Kumar Kedia & his rvile - Anita Kedia. 05 736107 -do- 06 969, I I Mr- Pramod Kumar Agarwal. l:x. N4D ofthe Conrpany I t""a-prc1i.rt5' iolil t, rcsp,,ndent Nos.2 alld 3 by the ex-Mxnf irq I)rrcctor ofthe com n To hand ovcr and rc! slcr lhc properties in its namc and alsc, I thc name of his sister conccm, M/: lrilian Iimbroidery Com To declare transler o lar)d to the exlent ol Acs.l1.09100 cenl. l)) thc Company in thvour of respol:er I \o I hercin and the transler in :spccl o[ land admeasuring Aes. I I 'xx')i (c r\ in furour ol' resfror ilr r' No i hc',.;.- situatcd in various r\ c\ rrumhers in Alinjivakkanr villai t Ponncri laluq. ihirrrvallur District a. \oid ir) temrs of - 5ll anc 'll-A ol-tlre Act, 'Sc"tiors ile56 I To dectarc thc actio I thc ()1. in takins ovcr the possession ,, lrrnd .rdnreasuring cenls sitrated al Acs- t.56 Azahimjivakkatn Villrr:e . Pooneri Taluk. Thiruvallur District rn 12.03.2007 as illegal and consequenl v direct the OL to lbrthwith re-dcliver th, oossession ofthe safile, to direcl the OL not lo r\ccrrrc or register ary docurn.'nt overlr, llrnJ rrdmeasuring Acs,l.56 cents situaLc(l al Azhinjivatlam Village, Pooneri lr lul. 'l hiruvallur District. 1o stay all further pr to the winding Lrl pcnnancnll!' and col OL to hand over al othcr movable and i s to the Com olcrlings in relation ) rl thc Company rs.,.lu!-ntly direct the r c racords, assets, -r rovablc propcfties e).t

6. SUMMARY OF DOCKET ORDERS IN RT]SPECT OF COMPA No.1348 OF 2005 i) On 17.02.2006, this Court. while considering thc application the OL seeking pcrmission to sell the assets of the ( rrnpany under uidation, dirccted that thc sale noticc bc publishr:r' in "Eenadu" 5 XI,. J COMPA No 1348 of2005 & batch in C P No.2l6 ot lyrS Telugu Daily (Hyderabad Edition) and in "The Indian Express" and "The l{indu" English Dailies (Chennai Edition). 'l'he applicarion was accordingly ordercd and the first respondent - lndian Bank was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- within two weeks to meet advertisement and incidental expcnses. ii) On 28.04.2006. the matter u,as placed belore this Court for conflrmation ol sale pursuant to the earlier order. 'l'he OL reported that auction r.r,as conducted and bids r.r,ere rcceived from 2l participants, the highcst being that ol' Mr. Jitender Kedia, Hyderabad, for Rs.69,00,000/-. The Indian Bank, however, filed a report valuing the land alone at Rs.1,12,20,000 /-, apart lrom the factory buildings valued at Rs.2 1,79,087/-. In view of this valuation and objection, the bid of Rs.69,00,000/- was not acceptcd, and the OL was directed to issuc a fresh sale noticc in "[)inamani" and "l)inamalar" (Tamil Dailics, Chennai and Thiruvallur Editions), and in "Eenadu" and "Vaartha" (Telugu Daitics, Chinoor and Nellorc Ettitions). The Bank was directed to incur the expenses. I ( 6 kt I COL{PA No ll18 of1005 d h rrrnCP.No216ol l!r'98 iii) On 03.07.2006, this Court again consid,'red thc OL's report. 'l'he upsct pricc had been flxed at Rs.1.14,00.0(. )'- on thc basis ol a valuation repotl, but the highest bid receiYed wa. 1is.72.00,000/- l)uring hearing, the second highest bidder exprcssc,J sillingness to cnhance the bid to Rs.73,50,000/-. As thcse off-ers u,. r ' l'ar belo$ thc upset prioc, thcy wcre rejected and thc OL was dircc:t,-d to corlduct a licsh sale. Thc ['.amest Mouey [)eposits (EMI ) ) 'cccived *'cre dirccted to bc re[Lnded, and the mattcr r.vas posted on 0 .08.2006 iv) On i3.09.2006, noting that the prcvious otice had not attracted proper offers. this Court cancelled thc carlicr :.ale noticc and directed the O[- to issue a fiesh noticc without tixing i l upset pricc'. by publishing thc sale noticc in "lrenadu" Tclugu l)aily (Nellorc lidition), "The Hindu" English Daily, and another 'l'ar,ril I)ailv having circulation in Chennai. The matter was posted on 26.1 ( 2006 v) On 26.10.2006, the OL rcported that pursrrr rt to the frcsh notice, auction was held and thc highest bid of llr;.145 lakhs rvas rec{ved from onc Mr. P.R. Reddy and others ol' Visal, hapatnam. ln furth\er negotiations held beforc this Court, M/s. Rarrr :c Leathcrs & 7 KI, J coMPA No 1348 0f2005 & barch rn c P No 216 0f t998 Supplies, Chennai and also its sister concem M/s. Indian Embroidery Company, Chennai, and M/s. A.K. Enterprises, I{yderabad, participated. An open inter se bidding was conducted in Court between the hvo, whercin M/s. Ram.jee Leathers & Supplies, applicant in COMPA No.259 of 2007. oflcred Rs.23 I lakhs, far above the earlier highest bid. 'l'his olfer was accepted as final. The OL was directed to retum the deposits of unsuccesslul bidders and file a report vi) On27.10.2006, this Court lormally accepted thc highest bid of Rs.231 lakhs made by M/s. Ramjee Leathers & Supplies in lhe inter se bidding, as against the earlier Rs.67.5 lakhs. The OL was directed to collect the sale consideration in terms of the conditions and deposit the same in Bank of Barod4 Barkatpura Branch, and to report on 0t.t2.2006. vii) On 27.12.2006, it was brought to thc notice of this Court that there was a dispute conceming land surrounding the auctioned property. The OL infbrmed that certain lands belonging to the Company were fraudulcntly alienated by the Ex-Managing Director, i 8 KI,. COMPA No Il18 oflt)l]5 ]: Lr .lr ]n ( l'No216oll998 thereby obstructing access to the factory premises 'fhc OL u'as directed to enquire inlo the matter and obtain part.ir:ulars liom the crcditor bank regarding the propcrties mortgaged, alon, riith copies of title deeds. 'l'he mattcr was posted on 18.01.2007 viii) {)n 25.01 .2007. this Court directed the resl:.rndcnt bank to produce all relevant tnaterial and information- irrcltrtling the information as to rvhether permission had bccn g. en to the Ex- Managing Director to effect sale of Acs.l.5-5 ccnts out ol' Acs.7.75 ccnts, and to explain the circumstances. ix) On 08.02.2007. the Manager of thc Bank aol'!'are (l and filcd relevant documents. which u,ere served on the Ot.. 'l'ir.tc u as granted to the Ol. to examine the documents, and thc Olficr:r''s appearance was dispensed with x) On 15.02.2007, it was further brought to th. notice ol this Court by the OL that in addition to thc auctioncd cxternl. the Companl' still owned Acs.3.4l cents, situated in Survey Nos. t '5,A, 5i9, 614A, 7llB. 7128, 7/4 and 9/5A at Alinjivakkam Village Ihc C)L u'as { i 9 KI, J COMPA No 1348 of 20oi & batch,nC.P.No 216 0l1998 directed to take possession of thesc properties and to file an appropriate application for their sale as rvell.

7. COMPA No. 561 of 2007 is filcd by thc OL under Sections 457 (l) (a) & (e) read with Sections 531, 53lA and 456 of the Act, 1956 praying to declare two sale transactions executed by thc Fx- Managing Director, Sri Pramod Kumar Agar-wal, rvithin six months prior to the commencemcnt of rvinding up as void. These sales comprised: (a) Acs.13.09100 cents in favour ofSri Jitender Kedia (R-2), and (b) Acs.14.28895 cents in favour of Smt. Anita Kcdia (R-3) i) It is the case ol the Ol. that thesc transactions executcd in September 1998, amount to lraudulent prelerenoc under Section 531 and voluntary transfers not in the ordinary course of business void under Section 531A. The transf'erees are cl<lse relatives of the Ex-Managing Director. Thc OL also alleged suppression of these 10 KIJ COMI'A No ll18 ol 2ul5 A- L. .h rt t l' No 2'16 ol I9qs transactions in the Statcmcnt of Affairs and dclibe'etc obstruotiou to acccss to the Aos.7.48 cents auctioned property ii) Contentions of respo ndent No.l. the Ex-M ln4g!_qg Director in COMPA No.561 of 2007: a) 'l he sales u,ere bona fide for valid consi([,- ration and not barred merely due to relationship. l1c dcnic,l concealnrent. claiming Company functioned till August 1t) '!) b) 'l'he sale proceeds were used to meet liab'lities and that records showed genuine transactions. IIc r1:nictl that an\ rnorlgaged land u'as sold or acccss hindcrcrl iii) 'l'wo auction purchasers sought implcadmcr as respondcnt Nos.4 and 5 in COMPA No.56l of 2007 claimins rterest in land acquired through auction. 'Ihcy submitted that disput(s o\er parl ol' Acs.7.48 cents prevented full delivery. They relied ,n the ordcr in COMPA No.259 of 2007 allowing registration of undisputed land iv) It is apt to note that the OL exan'ined Mr. M. Yi4lubhushana Rao. Lcgal Assistant in the officc of th,. OL. Thc said witness deposed that pursuant to thc winding u r, order datcd r!L, J COMPA No t.].18 ol-2005 & tJarch ln C p No 216 of tg98

07.09.1999 passcd in C.P.No.236 of 1998, rhe OL assumed charge of the Company's iusets under Section 449 of the Act, 1956. Based upon the statcment of affairs furnishcd by respondcnt No.l (Ex- Managing Director), the OL brought ro sale a portion of the Company's land, which was confirmed by this Court in favour of M/s. Ramjce Leathers & Supplies, Chennai. v) It has, however, come to light during subsequcnt suney by the Tahsildar, Ponneri, that several portions of the land lilrming part of the Company's assets had alrcady been transfcrred in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, who arc none other than the sistcr and brother-in-law of the Ex-Managing Director. Copies of sale deeds dated 22.O9.1998 and 25.09.1998 clearly establish thal such transf'ers were aff'ected within six months preccding the commencement of winding up proceedings on 24.12.1998. The said translers are, thus, squarely hit by Scctions 531 and 531-A of the Act, 1956 amounring to fraudulent preference and being void in the ofOL. vi) He has further deposed rhat while the Company originally owned Acs.36.88945 cents of land in Alinjivakkam village, Ponneri t2 XI ] COMPA No.l348 of2005 6- h (lfn( l'\o216of1993 I'aluk, thc l;r-Managing Director had clandcstirr. lr transferred Acs.l3.09l00 ccnts and Acs.14.28895 cents in favo. r' o[' his close rclativcs. Conscquently, only ncs.g.50950 cents remains in the name of the Cornpanr,. out of which Acs.7.48 cents stott<l mortgagcd to Indian Bank. (lhennai. '[hus. the Statcment of Allairs l]led bv the Ex- Managing I)ircctor dcliberatelv suppressed the said far:is hy disclosing only Acs.7.4tl ccnts and omitting thc balance. vii) lle has also deposcd that thc financial lerords annexed, particularl) thc sale of Land Account (Ex.P-13) and t.rc 'fanril Nadu Mercanlile Ilank Slatcment (Ex.P- l4), disclose thar an arnount of Rs.14,88,226l- shown as sale proceeds on itl 09. 1998 was immediatell' transf'erred to M/s. Jagannath Constru< Lions. a sistcr coucern ol' thc Company, on the very next day. Such circular diversion o1'lunds unmistakably demonstrates that thc impugned salc transactions wcrc not genuine sales for valuable consirleration in the ordinary coursc of husiness, but were sham transacti ,ns devised to siphon asscts arvay fiom the Company in liquidation. t3 KL. J COMPA No 1348 of 2005 & batch rn C P No 216 of 198 viii) Nothing contra was elicited from him during cross- examlnatlon. ix) AUDITOR'S REPORT Perusal of the Auditor's Report for thc financial year ending 3 1 .03. I 998 would reveal that thc auditors have unequivocally noted that thc Company was a "sick industrial Company" within the meaning of Section 3 (1) (o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. It was incuning continuous losses, posting Rs.4.03 Crores loss during 1997-98 and Rs.l.84 Crores during 1998-99. The auditors lurthcr recorded statutory defaults in payment of sales tax and excise duty, besides admitting that the Company had not provided for provident fund and ESI to its employees. x) These findings corroborate the testimony ol thc OL that by 1998, the Company was hnancially distressed, operating under accumulated losses, and was already facing proceedings bclore the Debt Recovery Tribunal at the instance of lndian Bank. [n such circumstances, the sale of substantial extents of land to near relatives of the Ex-Managing Director, without valuation, without disclosure to ! l4 K_. CONIPA No 13.{13 of200i r: t rlrrn( 1,No216otlry8 secul'cd creditors. \\ithout sanction of shareholders in .,eneral rneetins ri,ithout lbllos,ing thc procedure laid down undcr Ia.^, cannot be held to bc bona .fide xi) l'hc Auditor's Rcport also shows Lhat ivhil' the Companl, had maintained books of accounts, no eutrieri rcflccting the impugnetl salcs u,erc tbund in the Balance Sheets iirr I 997-98 and 1998-99 (lrxs.l'-ll & P-12). '['his lends further ;upport to the contention of thc OI- that the translcrs were dclibcr:rtcly concealed and not rccorded as part ofthe Company's Regulal' llusincss ll. COMPA Nos.735 AND 736 OF 2007 i) 'fhcsc applications u,ere flled by Sri Jitendcr Kcdia and his u'ife, Smt. Anita Kcdia seeking to declare thc actior. of the OL in taking over the posscssion of land to the extent of,\cs.I.56 cents, situated at Azhinjivakkam Village, Pooneri Taluk, thin.'vallur District on 12.03.2007 as illcgal and violative of Article, 300,4 of the Constitution. 'Ihcy claimed possession pursuant tc, r'cgistcred sale deeds of 1998. The1, prayed that OL bc restrained fror.,r dealing with said [and pcnding ad.judication ol'COMPA No. 561/200'z l5 KL. J COMPA No ll4E of 2005 & barch inC.P No 216 ol 1998 ii) The OL, however, justified the attachment stating that once the winding up order was passed, custody and control of the assets vested in him, and the transfers being void, possession was lawlully taken. 9 COMPA No.259 OF 2007 - Sale Deed Execution: i) This apptication has been filed by the auction purchaser, M/s' Ramjec Leathcrs and Supplies and its sistcr concem M/s. Indian t.)mbroidery Company, seeking directions to the OL to execule and register the sale deed and to deliver possession of the entire extent of Acs.7.48 cents of land together with structures thereon, purchased by it in the auction sale held pursuant to the orders of this Court. The rccord discloses that b!' ordel dated 27.10.2006, this Court had confirmed the salc of the said property in favour ofthe applicant lor a total consideration of Rs.23 I Lakhs, the full amount whereof has since bcen doposited with the O[.. ii) It appears, however, that disputes arose in relation to a portion of the auctioned property on account of prior transactions and claims set up by third palties. Consequently, though the auction t6 KI "I COMI,A No 1348 of2005 & bi.h rn( l'No216ol1998 purchaser souqht con\reyancc ol'the entirc cxtent ofl.c 7.48 ccnts. the OL was in a position to deliver and cxccute sale deeds only in respect ol an extent ol'Ac.5.92335 ccnts. which portion was r- rdisputed. The remaining e\tcnt $,as withhcld pcnding adjudication .r the ol-r.iections raiscd in connectcd company applications con,::urrIing alleged Iiaudulent trarrs lcrs ol land iii) I]1, order datcd 22.03.2007, this Court, while considering COMPA No 259 ot2007 in C.P. No.236 of 1998. ,vas pleased to direct the OL to executc and register the sale deed ir lavour of the auclion purchaser to the extcnt of the undisputed portlorr admcasuring Ac.5.92335 ccnts. and to dcliver possession thereof. [r rcspcct of the balancc extent of Ac. 1.55665 cents, which is the sr-rb lcct matter of contest in othcr pending proccedings, consideration vas expressly dcf'ened and rnade subjccl to the outcome of the said arl Lrdication. iu) SUMMARY OF DOCKET ORDERS: a) On 01.03.2007, this Court. pending further orders rcgarding the disputed portion of land, directed the OL to delivcr posscssion of th: IAnd alrcady sold to thc auction purchaser ancl to rentove the l7 KL.I COMPA No 1348 ol2oos & batch in C P No 236 of 1998 securiry persoilnel of the erstwhile Company, if any, from the premlses. b) On 22.03.2007, it was represented by the learned counsel for the applicant that the undisputed portion of land, admeasuring Acs.5.92 cents in Survey Nos.5/8. 5115. 5116, 5120, 615, 713,7/5, 716,8ll to 10, 9/6 & 9i7, GNT Road, Alinjavakkam, Ponneri Tatuk, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu, had already been delivered. lnsof'ar as the said extent is concerned, the applioant sought execution of registered sale deeds in its fbvour and in favour of its sister concem. The OL was accordingly directed to eiecute the necessary registered sale deeds with respect to the undisputed extcnt, pending further orders in relation to the disputed portion of land. c) On 03.06.2016, learned counsel Sri Milind Gokhale took notice for rcspondent No. 2. Leamed counsel for respondent Nos'3 and 4 was absent. Having considered the averments in the affrdavit filed in support of the application, respondent Nos.3 and 4 were restrained by this Court from alienating or otherwise disposing of -.*; f l8 tit r COMI'A No 1348 ol200i & br ch in C P l,lo 216 of l99E Acs. 1.56 cents ol land situated in Surv'ey Nos. : '8, 5115, 5116, 5/20, 615.116. 8/5. 816, 819,916 and 9/7, situated ar Alinjivakkam Village. I'onncri 'laluk, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu, pending lurther orders. d) On 02.05.201ti, in I.A. Nos. I and 2 ol 2014 in (](.,MPA No. 259 of 2007. this Courl, having considered the f-acr.s staled in the supporting affidavits, directed thc respondents to r.raintxin s/a/rs quo with rcspect to the properl"y. They werc fuilhe r :esl.rained from altering the nature of the propefi in any manner. tor a period of lwelve weeks. The matter was directed to be listcd ittter six weeks.

10. COMPA No. 969 OF 2014: i) this application is filed by the lix-Managi:rg Director of M/s. Shree Jagannath Steels Limitcd, seeking revival r_,1 the Company, nearly fifteen years aftcr the winding-up order w rs passed on

07.09.1999. The applicant had previously executed [rvo sale deeds dated 22.09.1998 and 25.09.1998 in favour of respondcr.t Nos.2 and 3, his relatives which were the subjcct of challenge in CrlrMpA No. 561 of 2007. These transactions occurred within six n.onths of the l9 Kl-' I COMPA No 11,18 of 2m5 & batch in C P No 216 ol 1998 winding-up petition and were not disclosed to the OL. The revival application was filed after possession of the Company's assets had already been taken by the OL and subsequcnt proceedings for asset sale were underway ii) OL opposed revival, citing absence of Court leave in post- tiquidation scftlcments, unlawlul possession of assets, prior transfer of land to rclativcs without disclosure. and unresolved COMPA No. 561l2OOl. Ot- submitted that assets rvcre sold with Court's lcave and winding up proceedings wcre advanced

11. ANA LYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT: i) 'lhe present case presents a complex interplay of issues arising under the Act, 1956, involving fraudulent preference, revival after liquidation, authority of the OL, and competing rights of auction purchasers and private transferecs. The central issues in the case revolve around the legality of certain transactions conducted within the twilight period of winding-up and the subsequent plea for revival. Section 53 I of thc Act, 1956 renders transfers made within six months of the winding-up petition void if they constitute fraudulent r .i, 20 KI J UOMPA No I348o120056rb chrn( t,No216orl99r prcl'erence. ii hile Section 53 I A of thc Act, l95ri rcnde rs such transt'ers void unless in thc ordinarv course of b_r;iltcss. Furlher. Scction 537 provides that any sale or disposition rrf pr6rperty 3fls1 commcncemcnt of winding-up u.ithout the lcave olth,, ( loun is void. "5.] I. FRAUDULF]N'I' PREFERIINCE ( I) Any transler ol' propeq,. movabl(r or intnrovablo- deliverl olgoods, pa).nlent, cxeclr on or othcr act rclating to properfy nrade, takon or donc by or against a Company rvithin sir mrtr ths before the commcncement of its winding up rvhich, had it been made, takcn or donc b., or against an individual within three months bt:l ,r.c thc presentation ofan insolrency pctition on rr r -.lr he is adj udged insolvcnt, would bc deemed irr lris insolvency a liaudulent prel'ercncc, shalI in trc ovcnt ofthe Companl,being wound up, bc deerr:d a liaudulent prclercncc ol ils creditors ancl rc invalid accordingly : I,rovidcd thal., in relation ro things made, taken or done before tllc cornrrencement of this Act, this sub-section sh:ll havc cffect with thc substitution. lor the referu:nci: to six months. of a re('crence to three months. (2) For the purposes of sub-scction (1). t r: presentation o1 a petition for winding up in rJ t i 2l KL, T CoMPA No ll48 ol2m5 & batch m C P No 216 oI 1998 case of a winding up by I lthe Tribunal], and the passing of a resolution lor u,inding up in the case of a voluntary u,inding up, shall be deemed to correspond to the act of insolvcncy in the case of an individual. 531A. AVOIDANCE OI' VOLUNTARY TRANSFER Any transfcr of propcrty, movable or immovable, or any delivcry of goods, made by a Company, not being a transl'cr or delivcry made in thc ordinary coursc of its busincss or in favour ofa purchaser or encumbrancer in good laith and for valuable consideration, il'mado within a period of one year before the presenlation of a petition for winding up by 1[the Tribunal] or the passing ofa resolution for voluntary winding up of the Company, shall be void against lhe liquidator." ii) In COMPA No.56l ol' 2007 sought to declare two transactions of land executed by thc l;x-Managing Director in favour of his relatives (respondent Nos.2 and 3) as void. The sale was affected on 22.09.1998 and, 25.09.1998 within six months of the winding-up petition's presentation. These transactions involved related parties and were concealed liom the OL, and obstructed the r&; 22 COMPA No ll.{8 of200i i: I il:hrn( " No 216 ot 1998 i,l Court-a uthorirod salc to a bona fide purchaser. Th(ls,i lacts dircctlv attract thc har under Sections 531 and 53 lA of thcAcr. 195(r iii) In Rakcsh Jagmohan Pandey v. JVG Finrrnce Ltd.r, thc Dclhi I{igh Court emphasized that a transaction s'ithi r the proxinritv ol'winding up must withstand scrutiny of bonafide 's rrrd arrn's length dcaling. In l)aragraph No.27, thc l)ethi High Courl elied upon thc decision rcndcred by the Calcutta tligh Court in Prurlential Capital Markets Ltd. (In Liquidation) In Re NIANU/WB/03h1/2007:(2007) 140 Comp Oase 754, whcrein it was held as under "{4. ...... The onus is on the officia[ liquidatr,- to cstablish that the Company as dcbtor dclibclr rely srnqlcd out the creditor for the transfer ahe;r of othcr crcditors who, upon the Company ultir-: clr. be rvound up, lnay ltot have enough lor the t:r tirc ducs to be discharged. But Section 531 docs not comc into play in this case as the responden- .r,as no crcditor of the Company as on the date ,t1 the sccond agreement.

45. Scction 53lA of the Act provides thal rn), transl'er ol property or goods made by a Conr;, rny u,ithin one year before the presentation c' a '. MAN-U/t )D/t204/20 I 7 23 KL. J COMPA No ll48 of 2005 & batch rn C P.No216 of 1998 winding up petition against it will be void unless such transaction was in the ordinary course of business. In principle. the srme lesls as Lo intenl. as in Section 531 apply to a transaction challenged under Section 531A of the Act and the onus is on the offrcial liquidator seeking to avoid the ffansaction to establish that the transfer was not made in the ordinary course of the Company's business or that it was not made in good faith or for valuable consideration. As to whether the transaction is made in good laith or tbr valuable consideration will depend on the lacts of a given case. Il there is no consideration or the consideration is rvocfully inadequate, there may arise a presumption of want of good faith. Again, even ifthere is adequate consideration, the official liquidator may attempt to establish that a valuable asset of the Company was sought to bc shielded against thc claims of the Company's creditors. The official liquidator's challenge would not pass muster il he cannot establisl.r lack of bona fides on the part of the transferee." iv) In Hawa Controls v. Official Liquidator of Tirupati Foundry Pvt. Ltd.2, the Gujarat IIigh Court clarified that the onus to '. MANU/GJ/7511/2007 n 24 (I I COMPA No.l348 0[2005 d- b ich in C I'} -\.-o 2]6 of 198 prove that the lransaction entered into within 6 monthr; of rvinding up is fraudulenr lics on thc pcrson trying to prove thht srrch transaction does not hold rvcll in law. ln paragraph No.10, it r.r,as iLeld as undcr "10. Beforc this Court, reliance was placed (--rr the decision of thc Bombay High Cout in the c:rs : of Monark Enterprises v. Kishan Tulpule and C' -r; 74 Oompany Cases 89wherein it is held that S: r :ion 531-A of the Companies Act, 1956 providt:s lbr' Savoidance of voluntary transfers' madc L" a Company within a period of one year during the prcsentation ofa petition for winding up (i) it ,uch tlansl-er was not made inthe ordinary coursc c 'its busincss, or (ii) if such transfer was not mrrd,: in good faith for valuable consideration. If thc t-,rurt comcs to the conclusion that such transfer, tl-('ugh made within a period of one year be trre presenLation 01 the pctition, was made either ir., the ordinary course ofbusiness or in good faith arrl tbr valuablc consideration, such transler would rrc be annulled. The burden of proving that the impugned transaction was not entered into in the olli rary course ofbusiness or in good faith and for va uable consideration would be on the Official Liquic rtor or thc Creditors impugning the transaction. 25 coMPA No ll48 0f2005 & barch c P No.236 0f l99E 'n KI-, J

11. So f'ar as the prcsent c?se is concemed, neither the Official Liquidator nor any of the Creditors havc come fonvard and pointcd out that the transaction in qucstion was not entered into in thc ordinary course of busincss or in a good laith and lor valuable consideration. On thc contrary, the applicant has proved beyond reasouable doubt by producing necessary evidence and established that the transaction in question u'as valid and genuinc. 'l'he Bombay High Court has lufther observcd in the afbresaid judgment that unless a transaction ol' transfer of a conrpany's propcrty amounts to a Iiaudulcnt preferencc under thc bankruptcy law or insolvency law and it is entcrcd into rvithin a period of six months prior to thc commencement of winding up of the Company, the transaction in question cannot bc treated cs void under Section 531 (l) ofthe Companies Act. 1956. The law docs not presume the transaction to be a liaudulent preference merely because it rvas entered into within a period of' six months prior to the commencement of winding up. If the transaction was entered into as a result of lawtul pressure of a bona fide creditor to rccover his dues, thc transaction of transler could not be treated as a fraudulent preference. This question does not arise in the present case as it is not the case of the I 26 I\-. COMI'A No llJli of200:.r t .h rn C P \.: 16 ol t998 appiicant that thc applicant has entered irlro rhe trausaction in qucstion as a result of any pr..s:rure trr 1g..,,"aa its dues." \') 'l he lranslers made by thc Ex-Managing Dir. jctor in lavour of his rclatives (respondent Nos.2 and 3) on 1.t.09. l99g and

25.09.1998 lall square ly u,ithin the tiaudulent transa:.tron in tcmrs ol' Scctions 531 and 53lA ot'thc Act. 1956, and are n! )t madc in good laith. I'hesc transactions occurred during the twitieh pcriod within six months prior to the prcsentation of the winding.ult petition and werc exccuted in favour o1' related parties without an1 crcdible evidencc ol' adequate considcration or justification ir thc ordinary courso ol- business. Thc lailurc of the Ex-Managir.t Director to disclosc thesc transfers to thc OL, coupled r.vith the conr:ealment of thc transactions during thc liquidation process, further rt:llects a laok ol bona Jide intent. 'fhere was no lcave of the Court olrr. ined. nor any proof that thr: transactions wcre conclucted at arm,s |:ngth, and the transferccs subsequent obstruction of Court-aL(. rorized salc procccdings onlv exacerbatcs the inl-erencc ol fraudulenr prelerence. ': :: i:' 27 KI, J coMPA No 134E of2005 & barch mC.p.No236 0f 1998

12. COMPA No. l34E of 2005 was filed seeking confirmation of the. sale conducted by the OL in respect of the assets of the Company under liquidation. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, public advertisements were issued in widcly circulated newspapers, and an open auction was held. The OL has reported that the auction was conducted in strict adherence to the directions of this Court, after due publication, and with full transparency. The highest bid received was duly placed before this Court for confirmation, and the entire process has been supervised under judicial directions, including inter se bidding held in opcn Court, thereby ruling out any attegation of irregularity or undervaluation.

13. Upon perusal of thc record, including the Auditor,s Report and the Chief Examination of the Legal Assistant of the OL, as considered in COMPA No. 561 of 2007, this Court is sarisfied rhat the auction process was carried out in accordance with law. with due publicity, and the best possible price was reatized. The objections raised by the respondents, challenging the correctness of the sale, are not supported by any substantive material. I 1l :.] 28 Kl I COMPA No 1348 of2005I brchinC.I,.No216ofI998

14. Accordingly, this Court holds that ttrr. auction sale conducted br.the OL is valid and proper. COMpA l,lc l34g of 2005 is accorclinglv allow,cd in lavour of the peritioner ,r rd the sale so affected stands oonfirmed. The directions issued her.i, shall be read conjointly with the findings recorded in COMpA No. 5rr I of 200:/. I5. 'Ihc lights of auction purchasers, includinl: M/s. Itamjec Lcathers & Supplies, applicants in COMI,A No.25!r rrf 2007 stand protected whcre the sale has been confirmed and possr:s,sion delivcred pursuanf to orders of this Court. I Iowever, on accor_rnt of dispute conccrning ovcrlapping claims ovcr a portion of the lar-d asscrted by respondenl Nos.2 and 3. only partial registration to ihe extent of Acs.5.92335 cents was permitted by keeping the -emainder in abeyance pending adjudication ol COMpA No.56l of 2007. In COMPA No.56l of 2007. since this Court declared tl.e undcrlying translbrs to respondent Nos.2 and 3 as void under Sec.rons 531 and 531,4 of the Ac1, 1956, the said dispute stands resolv,:<l in fhvour of the aucLion purchaser. Consequently, the overlapping land shall also be trcated as larvlully availabre for completion of ttte auction sale process and transl'crred to M/s Ramjec Lcathcrs & Supplir:s. r- 29 KL, J COM?A No.1l48 o12005 & batch rn C P No.2l6 ot 1998

16. The plea of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in COMPA Nos. 735 and 736 of 2007 alleging trcspzrss by the Ot. gets automatically rejected as it is established that the transaction in which the property was transt'erred in thc name of respondent Nos.2 and 3 is rcndered void while deciding COMPA No.561 as the samc falls under the twilight period i.e., six (06) months before the liquidation and was donc undcr tiaudulent manner by the Ex.Managing Dircctor of thc Company.

17. Additionally, in J.K. (Bombay) (P) Ltd v. New Kaiser-I- Hind Spg. &Wvg. Co. Ltd.r, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that once a winding-up order is passed, the custody and control of the assets vest solely with the OL. Therefore, the seizure of the land to an extent of Acs.l.56 on 12.03.2007 by the OL and objected by rcspondent Nos.2 and 3 in COMPA Nos.735 and 736 of 2007 is held as lawful. In the said dccision, thc Apex Court hcld as under: "32. It is thus wcll cstablished that once a winding- up order is passed thc underlaking and the assets of the Company pass under the control of the r. 1968 SCC Online SC 32 30 Kt .r COMPA No.ll43 012005 &. t r ih nt C P No 216 ol 1998 liquidator whose statutor) duty is to realize tlrcm and to pay fiom out ol the sale-procee,is its creditors- Such creditors acquirc on such c der being passed the right to have the assots retLl zcd and distributcd among them pari passu. No tLcw rights can thereafter be created and r1o uncompleted rights can be completcd, for doinrl str .,vould be contrary to thc credilors' right to lTarr' lhc proceeds olthc asscts distributed among thetti rari passu. But Mr Sen's argument lvas thlLr the appellants had acquired under the scheme a 't.ted right to have a sccond motgage rvhich could not be nullified by the court passing the rvindin. -up order. Wc caurot accede to this contention lit Lhe scheme vested no such right. What it did plo ide \\,as that in conside ration of the Company agre, ing to cxecute a second moftgage the appellan',s and thc other Schedule 'B' creditors agreed to r,:c,rive rcpaymcnt of debts due to them in Lhe ntattuer provided in the schemc and the agreemcnt of August 16, 1965. On failure of the Compirn . to execute thc mortgage the consideratior fbr postponement of repayment failed and the nrt,,ries due to thosc creditors became immerliir Lely payable. lt is also not correct to say th:t the schemc gave any priority 1o those creditors. llt ;h a priority could result onl.v on the execution o. the ' I t I I i JI KL, J coMPA No ll4E o12005 & balch rn c.P.No.2l6 0f 1998 mortgago which would make them secured creditors."

18. Further, with regard to COMPA No. 969 of 2014, where the Ex-Managing Director sceks revival of the Company under Scction 466 of the Act, 1956, the Bombay lligh Court in Forbes & Company Ltd. v. Official Liquidator of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court4 held that the discretion under Section 466 to grant a pcrmanent stay on winding up must be exercised judicially and only when there is "proof to the satisfaction ol the Court" that proceedings "ought to be stayed." Thc revival must not be a mere resumption of corporate existence, but must also amount to a genuine revival of the business, capable of serving thc interest of creditors, workmen, and the broader public, and not mercly serve as a vehicle for asset appropriation b1' erstwhile promoters. The Court emphasized that satisfaction of the Company Court is imperative and cannot be presumed solely because the applicant promises to discharge liabilities. The test laid down requires consideration of bona fides, commercial morality, and whether revival is a ruse to regain control over assets alrcady vested in the OL. In view of the same, thc case on hand in COMPA No.969 of n. 2013 scc online Bom 2339 .l . .. 4.. 32 KI I COMPA No ll48 o12005 d b, .h ln C P.No 236 ol1998 2014, it neithcr discloses a concrete scheme for revival nor establishes a primo facie case of commercial viability. Thercfor,:, Lhe application lacks supporting financial rcstructuring, clearance of dues, or 't:Ltutory demonstrable support from creditors or workmen. '4orelrver, it is tainted by past conduct ol concealment and unauthorizt d alienation of Company assets. which disqualities the Ex-Managirrlr l)irector liom seeking cquitable relicf under Scction 466. [n Forbt's & Company Ltda. the Bombal, I{igh Court held as under: "12. Sub-section I of Section 466 empolve'.1; the Company court to stay the proceedings in rvin,ling up either altogether or for a limitcd time ort :uch tcrms and conditions as it thinks fit. Such ar order can be passed on the application cither :,1 the Ofhcial Liquidator or of Any credit,:,r or contributory. The fundamental requiremcnt ol Section 466(l), is that thc court may do :;o "on proof to the satisf'action of the couft tltat all procccdings in relation to the winding up otrgltl to be stayed." Section 466(l) confers a discretic r on the court and not a sat 9174 app 34-2012 mltnrlate. fhe discretion has to be oxercised on salis:a: tion that stay of the proceedings in relation to uirL.ling up ought to be grantcd. The legislatur',: has i :t t I :, 'i :, :.. 33 KL. J COMPA No ll48 012005 & batch in C P No.236 of 1998 carefully used the expressions "on proof to the satisfaction" and "ought to be stayed". Before the court grants a stay, the statutory requirement is that there must be proof which is brought before the court on the basis of which it is satisfied that the proceedings ought to be stayed."

19. Upon an exhaustive consideration of the fachral matrix, statutory provisions and authoritative judicial precedents placed on record, this Court is constrained to arrive at thc conclusion that COMPA No.56l of 2007 is dccided in favour of OL holding that the transfer of thc land by the Ex-Managing Director of lWs. Sfuee Jagannath Steels Limited (in liquidation) in favour of respondent No.2 herein to the extent olAcs.13.09100 cents and the transfer of land in favour of respondent No.3 to the extent of Acs.i4.28895 cents are vitiated by legal infirmities and cannot be sustained in law since such transfers were affected during the twitight period i.e., within six months prior to the presentation of the winding-up petition and were not in the ordinary course ol business, nor accompanied by any contemporaneous, verifiable record evidencing bona fid" consideration or arm's-length dealing. As discussed above, such ,'. 34 KI, ] COMPA No.l348 ot2005 l..l ch in C l' No 216 ol 1998 transactions, having been affected in proximity to thc r'ommcncemcnt of liquidation proceedings. without disclosure to thc CIL and in contraventior-r of Sections 531 and 531A ofthc Act, 1():6. are dcclared

20. The act of clandestinely transferring val -LrLclc immovable properties to related parties without obtaining leave o the Cou(. and thereby obstructing the OL's access to estatc asscts li,r realization and distribution to creditors, constitutes a breach o[ fidtLciary obligations and undermines the equitable administration of llre winding-up process. The settlcd legal position mandates that sucl.. prct-erential and concealed transactions are to be subjected to heiq'rtened judiciat scrutiny and invalidated when found to be tainted [r'' mala fides or executed with intent to fruslrate creditor claims-

21. Equally, the challenge by respondent lios.2 and 3 in COMPA Nos.735 and 736 of 2007 with regard to th,: t )l-'s seizurc of Acs.1.56 is devoid of merit. lt is r.r,ell settled in law, rrnd affirmed by the Apex Court in J.K. (Bombay) (P) Ltd3, that upon lhc passing of a wQding-up order, the assets and undertaking o1' thc 0ompany stand 35 III, J coMPA No l34t of2005 & barch rnc P No.2l6 01 1q,8 vested in the custody of the OL and any attempt to interfere with such control without leave of the Companl' Court is ipso facto illegal. Thc objection raised by the said respondents is accordingly liable to be repelled.

22. Furthermore. this Court finds no merit in COMPA No. 969 of 2014 sceking revival of thc Company. The applicant. thc Ex- Managing Director, who was already iound to have cngaged in unauthorized and undisclosed transfers of Company assets, has approached the Court after an inordinate delay of nearly fifteen years post-liquidation, without any demonstrable schcme of revival, financial infusion, creditor consensus, or statutory dues clearance. Revival under Section 466 olthe Act, 1956, is not a matter ofright but lies within the discretion of the Court, to be exercised only on proof to its satisfaction that such a course is warranted in the interest of creditors, contributorics, and the commcrcial viability of the undertaking. As claborated in Forbes & Company Ltda, such discretion must be guided by considerations of commercial morality, bona fides, and faimess, not mere intent to reclaim control over assets already vested in the OL. The conduct of the Ex-Managing Director, . ir: .1 . :i' 36 KLJ COMPA No 11,18 of2005 & 1 rh rn C P No 236 ol 1998 marred by concealment and fiduciary breach, milit.:l:s aeainst thc invocation of equitable jurisdiction under Section 46f,, rnd the revival plea stands rcjectcd accordingly.

23. In view of the above findings, this Court lilther holds that the dispute over overlapping land raiscd in COMI'}A N r.2-59 o[ 2007, stands conclusively resolved in favour of the auction g:urchaser, N4's. Ramjee & Supplies, consequent to the declaration r:,l nullity ol the impugned sale deeds in COMPA No.561 of 200-:I. The auction process, having been conducted with prior Court ap.,roval and the consideration fully paid and accepted, shall stancl protectcd and implemented in fu[.

24. This Court is, thus, satisfied that thc liq:ri,lation proccss was undertaken in accordance with law and any subs;crluenl- atlempls to disturb the settled estate without judicial sarL,..:tion and in contravention of statutory mandates cannot bc corLnrcnanccd. The sanctity of winding-up proceedings must be prc:;c'ved. and all fraudulent, preferential or unauthorized transactions mlrst be declared r i D .:, 37 KI. J coMPA No ll48 0f2005 & batch rn c.P-No.2l6 0f l99E void to uphold the supremacy of creditor rights and statutory administration

25. Having regard to the foregoing discussion, this Court concludes the following D COMPA No.1348 of 2005 filed by the OL seeking confirmation of the auction sale conducted by the OL is allowed holding that thc auction conductcd by the OL for sale of the property in l'avour ol M/s. Ramj ee Leathers & Supplies and its sistcr concern, M/s. lndian Embroidery Company, is valid and proper ii) COMPA No.259 of 2007 filed by the auction purchaser is allowed directing the OL lo exeoutc registered sale deeds for the remaining disputed land to the extent of Acs.1.56 cents in favour of Mis. Ramjee Leathers & Supplies and its sister concem, iWs. lndian llmbroidery Companl, in accordance with law. iiDCOMPA No. 561 of 2007 filed by the OL is also allowed, declaring the transfers effected on 22.09.1998 and

25.09.1998 by the Ex-Managing Director of the Company in I ,.*E I ,t;, ..! . 38 KLJ COMPA No i]48 012005 A rrrh rn C P No 236 of 1998 Iavour of his close rclatives. respondent Nos..l and 3 herein. as void since the same is barred bv Sectionr, :ti I and 53 I -A of the Act, 1956. iv)COMI']A Nos.735 and 736 of 2007 filed by, rhe close re latives of Ex-Managing Directors, responcleirt Nos.2 and 3. are disnisscd hotding that the said seizure l;r.ng r,.alid upon the winding-up order. v) COMPA No. 969 of 2014 filed by rht: Ex-Managing Director seeking revival of the Company urLd,:r Section 466 of the Act, I 956, is also dismissed. vi) In the circumstances of the case. there shall bt: no ordcr as to SdI. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR @ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1 The official Liquidator, M/s shree Jagannth Steels Limi:ed., office at 1st floor, Corporate Bhawan, Bandlaguda, Nagole, Hyderabad -500068. The Registrar of Companies, Ministry of borporate lrffairs, Government of lndia 2nd floor Corporate Bhawan, Nagole, Bandla,Juda, Thattiannaram Village Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distr tt, Telangana State Pin Code 500 680 The Regional Director, South Eastern Region, [rinistry of Corporate Affairs, 3rd floor Corporate Bhawan, Nagole, Bandiar;uda, Thattiannaram Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dislricl Telangana State, pin Code 500 680. 2 \

4.TheS.o.o.S.Section,HighCourtatHyderabad,fortheStateofTelangana. 5-oneCCtoSriArvindShukla,CounselforofficialLiquidator,HighCourtat Hyderabad [oPUC] - I o'oneCCtoSriM.AnilKumar,Counselforofficial'Liquidator'HighCourtl 7. oie cc to sri u.n.anat, counsel for officiat Liquidator, High court at ^it v,,a^r r-a.ncar rnr offiniat r inrriaaror Hioh court at Hyderabad [OPUC] Hyderabad IOPUC]

8. One CC to Sri V.S. Raju' Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to Sri T. Surya Satish' Advocate [OPUC] 10.One CC to Mrs. Nandini S Bilolikar, Advocate [OPUC] 1'1 . One CC to Sri M. Anil Kumar' Advocate [OPUC] 12.Two CD CoPies VH/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 1110912025 l I I I COMMON ORDER COMPA.No.1348 of 2005, 259,561, 735 & 736 of 2007 AND 969 of 2014 IN CP.No. 236 of 1998 a v C: 1; 27 SEP xut I' * DEspArcH 6S * ALLOWING THE COMPA.Nos.l 348 of 2005, 259 of 2007 & 561 of 2007 DISMISSING THE COMPA.Nos.73S ot 2007, 736 of 2007 & 969 of 2014 f q XT