https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112029 In company liquidation proceedings, possession rights can be determined on the merits where an occupier has voluntarily intervened and been fully heard. The intervenor's claim to continue in possession failed because the order supporting the earlier debt recovery sale and possession claim had been displaced by a later tribunal order recalling the sale and rejecting the possession application. The Company Court also noted that the land did not belong beneficially to the company in liquidation, the official liquidator had no useful purpose in retaining it, and the applicant had agreed to waive lease rent arrears. On those facts and under the lease terms, the applicant was entitled to possession of the structure and the intervenor had no right to remain in occupation. en-us Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112029 In company liquidation proceedings, possession rights can be determined on the merits where an occupier has voluntarily intervened and been fully heard. The intervenor's claim to continue in possession failed because the order supporting the earlier debt recovery sale and possession claim had been displaced by a later tribunal order recalling the sale and rejecting the possession application. The Company Court also noted that the land did not belong beneficially to the company in liquidation, the official liquidator had no useful purpose in retaining it, and the applicant had agreed to waive lease rent arrears. On those facts and under the lease terms, the applicant was entitled to possession of the structure and the intervenor had no right to remain in occupation. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112029