Court Upholds Eviction Order, Dismisses Appellant's Challenges on Property Rights.

The court upheld the orders directing the eviction of the appellant from the property and compliance with previous directives. The appellant's challenges regarding property rights, business continuity, and estoppel were dismissed. The Official Liquidator was criticized for delays but instructed to ensure property handover. Both appeals by the appellant were dismissed, mandating eviction by January 31, 2015, and possession transfer by February 07, 2015, with payment of occupation charges till January 2015.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disclaimer of property by the Official Liquidator.
2. Eviction of the appellant from the said property.
3. Compliance with the orders dated May 14, 2013, and October 30, 2014.
4. Rights of the appellant as the purchaser of SST Media's business.
5. Applicability of Section 535 of the Companies Act, 1956.
6. Estoppel against the appellant for challenging the first order.
7. Onerous nature of the property for the Official Liquidator.
8. Due process of law for recovery of possession.
9. Conduct and responsibilities of the Official Liquidator.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disclaimer of Property by the Official Liquidator:
The learned Company Judge directed the Official Liquidator to disclaim the property and hand over possession to the respondent no. 2. The appellant contested this direction, arguing that the property was not onerous and that SST Media had no right or interest in the property. However, the court found that SST Media was in possession of the property and had a right in respect of it, thus falling under the definition of "property" in Section 535 of the Companies Act, 1956.

2. Eviction of the Appellant from the Said Property:
The court upheld the order directing the eviction of the appellant from the property. It was noted that the appellant had accepted the sale notice's condition to vacate the property by May 31, 2014, and thus was estopped from challenging the eviction order. The appellant's argument that the business involved 300 employees and their livelihood would be jeopardized was not accepted.

3. Compliance with the Orders Dated May 14, 2013, and October 30, 2014:
The Official Liquidator was found to have complied with the order for the sale of SST Media's business but failed to execute the order for disclaiming the property and handing over possession to the respondent no. 2. The court directed the Official Liquidator to ensure the property is vacated by January 31, 2015, and possession handed over by February 07, 2015.

4. Rights of the Appellant as the Purchaser of SST Media's Business:
The appellant argued that purchasing the business of SST Media included the right to carry on business from the property. However, the court held that the appellant was bound by the condition in the sale notice to vacate the property by May 31, 2014, and thus had no right to continue occupying the property.

5. Applicability of Section 535 of the Companies Act, 1956:
The court found that the conditions under Section 535 for disclaiming property were met. SST Media was in possession of the property, and the Official Liquidator was deemed to be in possession post-winding up order. The property was considered onerous as the Official Liquidator was liable to pay monthly occupation charges without benefiting the winding-up process.

6. Estoppel Against the Appellant for Challenging the First Order:
The appellant was estopped from challenging the order dated May 14, 2013, as it had accepted the sale notice's terms and conditions and benefited from purchasing SST Media's business. The principle of estoppel was applied, preventing the appellant from approbating and reprobating.

7. Onerous Nature of the Property for the Official Liquidator:
The court determined that the property was onerous for the Official Liquidator. The business and assets of SST Media had been sold, and the Official Liquidator was incurring significant monthly occupation charges without any benefit to the winding-up process.

8. Due Process of Law for Recovery of Possession:
The court held that proceedings under Sections 446 and 535 of the Companies Act, 1956, constituted due process of law for recovering possession from the Official Liquidator. The respondent no. 2 was entitled to invoke these statutory provisions without needing to pursue the eviction suit.

9. Conduct and Responsibilities of the Official Liquidator:
The court criticized the Official Liquidator for not taking timely steps to comply with the order to disclaim the property and hand over possession. The Official Liquidator was directed to ensure compliance with the court's orders and facilitate the eviction of the appellant.

Conclusion:
Both appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed. The appellant was directed to vacate the property by January 31, 2015, and pay the monthly occupation charges till January 2015. The Official Liquidator was instructed to ensure the property was vacated and possession handed over to the respondent no. 2 by February 07, 2015.

---