TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court orders removal of seals from property listed as company's office, finding it owned by individual</h1> <h3>Financial Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (Thro Manager/C. E.O.) Versus Official Liquidator- Arya Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Financial Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (Thro Manager/C. E.O.) Versus Official Liquidator- Arya Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues involved: Application to direct Official Liquidator to remove seal on property; Ownership of property in liquidation.Ownership of Property in Liquidation:The applicant bank sought removal of seals on a property, shop No.228 of Trade Centre, claiming that the property was not owned by the company in liquidation but by Surendra K. Agrawal, who acted as a guarantor in a loan transaction. The bank had filed Lavad Suits for recovery, resulting in awards against the principal debtor and Surendra K. Agrawal. Despite the property being shown as the registered office of the company in liquidation, evidence indicated it belonged to Surendra K. Agrawal, not the company. The absence of company records at the property supported this claim. The Court directed the Official Liquidator to remove the seals, as the property was not an asset of the company in liquidation, ensuring the bank's recovery efforts were not hindered.Official Liquidator's Report and Property Examination:Following an interim order, an inventory of the property revealed no materials inside the shop. Subsequent reports by the Official Liquidator confirmed the property was not linked to the company in liquidation, as the directors listed did not include Surendra K. Agrawal. Documents presented by the bank showed that Surendra K. Agrawal, while alive, had deposited title documents of the shop as a guarantor for a loan, further supporting the claim that the property was not owned by the company in liquidation. The Court emphasized that the Official Liquidator should remove the seals after conducting a thorough examination in the presence of bank officials.Conclusion:The Court's decision was based on the clear evidence that the property in question belonged to Surendra K. Agrawal, not the company in liquidation. By directing the Official Liquidator to remove the seals, the Court ensured that the bank's recovery efforts were not impeded. It was clarified that the Court's examination focused solely on determining ownership of the property in relation to the company in liquidation, without prejudice to any other parties claiming interests in the property.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
