Continuing possession by a Liquidator upheld where premises remained relevant to an unfinished liquidation and prior identical relief failed.

In a summary request under Section 457 of the Companies Act, 1956 for return of premises from the Official Liquidator, the court held that the controlling enquiry is whether the Liquidator's need to retain possession remains relevant. The applicant could not reopen substantially the same relief on identical grounds after an earlier rejection, as res judicata and issue estoppel applied. Because liquidation was still pending and the premises continued to be used in connection with that process, the Liquidator's possession was upheld and the request was rejected as barred and lacking merit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled under Section 457 of the Companies Act, 1956 to recover possession of the premises from the Official Liquidator on the basis of alleged changed circumstances, and whether the earlier dismissal of a similar application barred the present request.

Analysis: The present application was found to be substantially the same as the earlier rejected application, with no material change in circumstances apart from a reduction in pending cases. The earlier order did not reserve a fresh liberty to seek the same relief on identical grounds, and the principles of res judicata and issue estoppel were held applicable. The decision in Nirmala Bafna was treated as governing the scope of such summary proceedings, namely that the relevant enquiry is whether the Liquidator's reason for continuing in possession remains a relevant one. The premises were still being used in connection with liquidation, the liquidation had not concluded, and the applicant's own offer of alternate accommodation reinforced that the Respondent continued to require the premises. The applicant's reliance on the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the cited precedents was held not to assist in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to the return of possession, and the application was rejected as barred and otherwise meritless.

Final Conclusion: The Liquidator's continuing possession was upheld because the premises remained relevant to the unfinished liquidation process, and the applicant could not reopen the same relief on substantially identical grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: In a summary application for return of premises from a company in liquidation, the decisive question is whether the Liquidator's reason for retaining possession is still a relevant one; where the liquidation remains pending and the premises continue to be used for that purpose, the court will not compel surrender of possession on substantially identical grounds previously rejected.

---