TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (1) TMI 164
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3, and May 11, 1943. But, Shankarlal and Piareylal (present plaintiffs) filed a suit for pre-emption against the vendors and Jugal Kishore and as a result of the decree passed in the suit, they became entitled to the lessor's interest in the suit plot of land on August 13, 1945. Meanwhile the lessee, Patel Mills Ltd., went into liquidation and Mehra was appointed voluntary liquidator of the company on May 11, 1937, by a special resolution at a meeting of the creditors of the company. Benaras Bank Ltd. was the biggest creditor of the company. So the liquidator negotiated the sale of all the assets of the company to the Benaras Bank Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 70,000 and on February 23, 1939, executed an agreement of sale after receiving the consideration. The leasehold interest in the suit plot was also included as one of the assets in the agreement of sale. At a meeting held on May 4, 1939, the creditors accepted the final report of the voluntary liquidator. The report was sent to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, and registered on September 9, 1939. The company thus stood dissolved with effect from December 9, 1939. Subsequently on March 1, 1940, the Benaras Bank Ltd. itself we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were estoppel from contending that the transfer in favour of the bank was not valid. Section 53A, Transfer of Property Act, was also invoked as a defence to the action of the plaintiffs. It was lastly pleaded that the plaintiffs had no right to sue for possession as the leasehold interest in the land had escheated to the Government on the dissolution of the company. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The judgment and decree of the trial court were affirmed by the 1st appellate court and a learned single judge of the High Court in second appeal. The learned single judge found in favour of the defendant on the question of estoppel escheat and authority of the voluntary liquidator to execute the sale deed but found against the defendant on the applicability of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. On appeal by the plaintiffs under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, a Division Bench of the High Court reversed the judgment and decree of the subordinate courts and decreed the suit. The Division Bench held that the voluntary liquidator had no authority to execute the deed of sale after the dissolution of the company and that there was neither estoppel nor escheat. The Divisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter it was dissolved but that a liquidator could be sued in damages for the breach of a statutory duty which he had failed to perform while functioning as liquidator. We do not think that this case is of any assistance to the appellant. We are unable to appreciate how after the company was dissolved the liquidator could still claim to represent the company and execute a registered deed of sale. Once the company was dissolved it ceased to exist and the liquidator could not represent a non-existing company. If the liquidator was to discharge any duty or perform any function on behalf of the dissolved company he should have express statutory authority. The Indian Companies Act, 1913, contained no provision enabling the liquidator to do any act on behalf of a dissolved company. Section 209H of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, enjoined the liquidator as soon as the affairs of the company were wound up to make up an account of the winding up and to call a general meeting of the company and a meeting of the creditors for the purpose of laying the accounts before the meetings. The liquidator was then required to send to the Registrar a copy of the account and to make a return to him of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11 [FB] and Musammal Ramman Bibi v. Mathra Prasad, 75 Indian Cases 621. Both were cases of fixed rate tenancies. As pointed out by the Full Bench in Tulsi Ram Sahu v. Guru Dayal Singh, one of the incidents of a fixed rate tenancy was that provided by section 18 of the Agra Tenancy Act, 1901, which prescribed that a right of occupancy would stand extinguished when a fixed rate tenant died leaving no heir entitled under the Act to inherit the right of occupancy. It followed therefrom that the land had to revert to the landlord and could not go to the Government by escheat. On the other hand, in Sonet Kooer v. Himmut Bahadoor [1876] ILR 1 Cal. 391 (PC). The Privy Council held that on the failure of heirs to a tenant holding land under Mukarrari Tenure there was nothing in the nature of the tenure which prevented the crown from taking the Mukarrari by escheat, subject to the payment of rent to the zamindar. If the leasehold interest of the company in the land became vested in the Government on the dissolution of the company it must follow that the suit at the instance of the plaintiffs was not maintainable. The next question for consideration is whether the plaintiffs were estopped ....