Shri Winston Vaz, Ex-Director v. M/s.Marketing Advertising
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. (R.M. LODHA, J.) (R.M. LODHA, J.) (R.M. LODHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
Judgment
Cause title
3. The Official Liquidator, High Court, Mumbai Liquidator of M/s. New India Fisteries Ltd. (in Liquidat- ion) having its Registered Office at: Sassoon Docks, Colaba, Mumbai 0 400 005. .. Respondents
Mr.S.V. Borkar i/b. Bhavna Bhatt for the appellant. Mr.U.J. Makhija i/b. Mulla & Mulla for respondent No.2. Mr.P.G. Rao, Dy. Official Liquidator present.
CORAM : R.M. LODHA, &
CORAM : R.M. LODHA, &
CORAM : R.M. LODHA, & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 24TH NOVEMBER, 2004. DATED : 24TH NOVEMBER, 2004. DATED : 24TH NOVEMBER, 2004.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
(Per R.M. Lodha, J.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2
There is no dispute that the subject property was taken on long term lease basis by the company in liquidation from the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay (‘BPT’). The company failed and neglected to pay the compensation (charges) under the lease. By the order dated March 14, 1983 the company was ordered to be wound up and the official liquidator was appointed. There also appears to be no dispute that the lessor BPT lodged their claim with the official liquidator in respect of the arrears of compensation payable by the company in liquidation. The BPT has forfeited the lease of the subject property due to the breach of terms and conditions of the lease and called upon the official liquidator to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the lease premises. In the month of October, 1995 when the company application was made by the lessor BPT for diretion to the official liquidator to hand over peaceful possession of the subject property, it appears that an amount of Rs.14,49,366.38 or about was outstanding against the company in liquidation being the arrears of compensation. The subject premises have not been in use by the company for last many years. There is also no dispute that two other plots being plot Nos.3 and 5 which were taken on lease by the company in liquidation from the BPT were ordered to be handed over by the learned company 3 judge to the lessor BPT and the said order has attained finality. In the backdrop of these facts the order passed by the learned company judge directing the Official Liquidator to hand over the subject premises to the lessor BPT cannot be faulted.
Though the impugned order does not indicate the reasons, the fact that the lessor BPT has been denied the payment of Rs.14,49,366.38 being the arrears of compensation since the property was being handed over to the lessor, it is clear that the learned company judge was not oblivious to the interest of the creditors.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the possession of the subject premises ordered to be handed over to the lessor BPT, therefore, does not call for any interference.
Operative part
The appeal is dismissed. No costs. (R.M. LODHA, J.) (R.M. LODHA, J.) (R.M. LODHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Majot Port Trusts Act, 1963; Major Port Trusts Amendment Act, 1974.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 24 Nov 2004. The bench was R M LODHA, P DEVADHAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.