✦ Bombay High Court · 03 Jul 2008

Company Application No. 763 of 2007 · Bombay High Court · 2008

Company Application No. 763 of 2007S C DHARMADHIKARI2 min read

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 33. Mr.Punjabi states that even the movables which are mentioned in prayer clause (c) of the company application, the sale has been concluded and proceeds are lying with SICOM. They will continue to hold the same subject to section 529A of the Indian Companies Act…

Judgment

Mr.S.N.Fadia with Mr.N.S.Fadia for Bank of India. Mr.P.Punjabi for SICOM Mr.P.Ramarao, O.L. present. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.J.J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI 3rd July 2008 3rd July 2008 3rd July 2008 P.C.P.C. P.C.

1.

In the light of the fact that public body is going to dispose of the immovable properties at Pune, official liquidator has no objection to SICOM ltd. taking necessary steps in accordance with law. In the light of the agreement reached between the parties the company application no.763 of 2007 is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). As far as disbursement of sale proceeds are concerned, parties to abide by further orders of this Court.

2.

Mr.Punjabi appearing for SICOM states that the properties would be sold with due intimation to the Official Liquidator.

3.

Mr.Punjabi states that even the movables which are mentioned in prayer clause (c) of the company application, the sale has been concluded and proceeds are lying with SICOM. They will continue to hold the same subject to section 529A of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and appropriate undertaking will be given to the Official liquidator in that behalf. Official Liquidator’s report seeks directions to take possession of the immovable properties at Thane. The secured creditors have no objection to the same. As far as prayer clause (a) of the report dated 15th May, 2008 is concerned, Mr.Fadia, appearing for Bank of India, states that pursuant to the Recovery Certificate granted by D.R.T. in favour of the said Bank, the proceedings in execution thereof have been initiated by the bank and the said immovable property is attached. He invites my attention to the warrant of attachment dated 29th February, 2008. In such circumstances, he submits that the Bank would take the responsibility of safeguarding and protecting its security i.e. the property and further if it decides to dispose of the same, official liquidator would be duly intimated of all developments in that behalf. In the light of this statement of Mr.Fadia, on instructions, from Bank of India and further considering the attachment levied by D.R.T., official liquidator at this stage does not press for any protection in terms of prayer clause (a) of the report. However, while disposing of the report, liberty is granted to the official liquidator to seek appropriate directions at the subsequent stage with regard to immovable property described more particularly in prayer clause (a) of the said report. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 03 Jul 2008. The bench was S C DHARMADHIKARI.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Company Application No. 763 of 2007). ← Search more judgments