Partnership Firm Granted Leave to Pursue Ownership Claim Over Factory Premises

The court granted leave for the applicants to take out a Judge's Summons under rule 19(3) of the Company Court Rules, 1959. The applicant, a partnership firm, asserted their right over factory premises, emphasizing their ownership through conveyance, mortgage, and licenses. Allegations of asset siphoning by Jain group directors led to an order for the removal of seals, inventory of goods, and submission of a statement of affairs. The applicant provided an undertaking not to dispose of assets without court approval. The judgment specified further directives for handling third-party fabrics and security measures, with the Official Liquidator overseeing the process.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application for leave under rule 19(3) of the Company Court Rules, 1959.
2. Possession of factory premises by the applicant.
3. Allegations of siphoning off assets by Jain group of directors.
4. Order for removal of seal and inventory of goods in the premises.
5. Undertaking by the applicant regarding possession and assets.
6. Filing of necessary statement of affairs by directors to the Official Liquidator.

Analysis:
1. The judgment begins by granting leave under rule 19(3) of the Company Court Rules, 1959 for the applicants to take out a Judge's Summons. The Judge's Summons is made returnable on a specified date. The petitioner and Deputy Official Liquidator waive service of the company application.

2. The case revolves around the possession of factory premises by the applicant, a partnership firm, which had purchased the land and building from another entity. The applicant asserts their right over the premises, mentioning the conveyance, mortgage with a bank, and various licenses obtained over the years. They highlight ongoing business activities and the presence of workers at the premises.

3. Allegations are made by the petitioner regarding the Jain group of directors holding shares in both the company in liquidation and the applicant firm. The petitioner alleges siphoning off assets of the company in liquidation by the directors, emphasizing the need for a thorough investigation.

4. The judgment orders the Official Liquidator to remove the seal from the premises and conduct an inventory of all goods stored there. The applicant is directed to deposit a sum for the valuer's charges and assist in the inventory process. Any goods belonging to the company in liquidation are to be segregated and kept separately.

5. The applicant is required to furnish an undertaking to the Official Liquidator, pledging not to dispose of the premises or assets and not to part with possession or create third-party rights without court orders. The directors are instructed to file a statement of affairs with the Official Liquidator within a specified period.

6. The judgment concludes with additional directives regarding the handling of fabrics belonging to third parties, the continuation of security measures, and the authentication of the order for action by the Official Liquidator. The date of the order is specified at the end of the judgment.

---