Decrees declared illegal due to collusion and fraud, tenants ordered to surrender possession.

The court declared the decrees obtained by the tenants as illegal and void due to collusion and fraud, lacking jurisdiction post-winding up order. It found the claims of the tenants invalid, directing them to surrender possession of properties. The Official Liquidator was authorized to take necessary actions to protect the Company's assets, condemning the fraudulent actions of ex-directors and tenants to safeguard the interests of workers and creditors.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of decrees obtained by tenants.
2. Jurisdiction of courts to pass decrees post-winding up order.
3. Collusion and fraud by ex-directors and tenants.
4. Validity of tenancy claims by tenants.
5. Authority of the Company Court to declare decrees void.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of Decrees Obtained by Tenants:
The Official Liquidator contended that the decrees obtained by the tenants were collusive and fraudulent, lacking jurisdiction since they were procured without the requisite leave under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956. The decrees were obtained after the winding-up order dated 19th June 2012, which rendered them void. The court noted the collusion between the ex-directors and the tenants, who were often family members, and found that the decrees were indeed fraudulent and collusive.

2. Jurisdiction of Courts to Pass Decrees Post-Winding Up Order:
The court held that the decrees passed by the Courts post the winding-up order were without jurisdiction as no leave under Section 446 of the Companies Act was obtained. The decrees were declared nullities and coram non judice, meaning they were invalid and non-binding. The court cited the Supreme Court judgments in "Chief Engineer, Hydel Project v. Ravinder Nath" and "Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd." to support this position.

3. Collusion and Fraud by Ex-Directors and Tenants:
The court found substantial evidence of collusion and fraud between the ex-directors of the Company and the tenants. The ex-directors led evidence on behalf of the tenants and failed to contest the suits, resulting in decrees that favored the tenants. The court observed that these actions were intended to obstruct the Official Liquidator from taking possession of the Company’s assets.

4. Validity of Tenancy Claims by Tenants:
The tenants claimed tenancy based on oral agreements and subsequent written agreements made after the winding-up order. The court found these claims to be invalid, as the agreements were made post the winding-up order and without proper documentation or rent receipts. The court also noted that the tenants failed to produce convincing evidence to substantiate their claims.

5. Authority of the Company Court to Declare Decrees Void:
The court affirmed its authority to declare the decrees void, citing the judgment in "Forbes and Company v. Coromandel Garments Ltd." which established that decrees obtained by fraud can be set aside at any stage. The court rejected the tenants' reliance on "Modella Woollens Ltd. v. Official Liquidator," distinguishing the facts and legal principles applicable in the present case.

Conclusion:
The court declared the decrees obtained by the tenants as illegal and void, directed the tenants to handover physical possession of the properties within one week, and authorized the Official Liquidator to take necessary actions, including breaking locks and seeking police assistance if required. The court emphasized the need to protect the assets of the Company for the benefit of its workers and creditors, condemning the fraudulent actions of the ex-directors and tenants.

---