TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (8) TMI 227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar, Sheel Spin Enterprises and Rita Ice Cream and Refrigerating Company who claimed to be in possession and occupation of premises No. 10, Ashoke Marg, Lucknow. By a judgment and order dated September 6, 1969, passed in the said application, the said five occupiers were directed to pay compensation to the official liquidator for use and occupation of the said premises, amounts of which payable per month were fixed till vacant possession was delivered. The said occupiers were further directed to deliver up vacant possession of the portions of the said premises in their respective occupation to the official liquidator by October 31, 1979. It was, inter alia, found in the said judgment that the official liquidator had issued receipts to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aur, Harikrishna Gaur, Sekhar Gaur, Amar Gaur (the owners of the premises) and the company represented by the official liquidator claiming, inter alia, a prohibitory injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession by the applicant in the said premises and from evicting the applicant therefrom. It is, inter alia, alleged that a part of the said premises was let out to the applicant some time in 1971 on a monthly rent of Rs. 400 and the official liquidator had issued receipts in respect of the said rent to the applicant. It is contended that in the facts, the matter comes within the purview of the said Act. It is alleged that the applicant has obtained an ad interim order against the defendan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the official liquidator was only a pro forma party. It was submitted further that such suit should be allowed to be proceeded with in the court where it was filed and this court in its company jurisdiction should not deal with the question arising in the said suit as it involved the rights of a third party, viz., the Gaurs. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the learned advocate for the applicant cited the following decisions : (a) Suresh Chandra Khasnabish v. Bank of Calcutta Ltd. [1951] 21 Comp. Cas. 110. In this case, a Division Bench of this court construed section 171 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, which corresponds to section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, and held that when a company has been wound up by an order of co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e decided in the winding-up proceeding and the suit against the second defendant could not be proceeded with in the absence of the company. In such circumstances, it was held by the Division Bench that the discretion should have been exercised in favour of the plaintiff. The appeal was allowed and leave was given to the plaintiff to proceed with the suit. (c) Star Engineering Works Ltd. v. Official Liquidator [1977] 47 Comp. Cas. 30 (Guj.). In this case, a company was directed to be wound up by an order dated February 7, 1972. A suit was filed by the plaintiff thereafter on March 13, 1972, inter alia, for a money decree with interest and costs, and in the alternative return of certain goods. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court on a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or proceed with a suit or other legal proceedings against a company in liquidation, the court has to take into account the entire facts and circumstances. The relevant factors are the interest of creditors, preservation of the assets of the company against frivolous litigation and the rights or liabilities of third parties. It is alleged in the affidavit that the real parties in support of the summons in the suit are the landlords, viz., the Gaurs. There is no averment in the said affidavit that the official liquidator is a necessary party thereto or that he had to be impleaded. By the only order obtained in the said suit, the applicant has been allowed to continue in possession of the property in dispute contrary to the order passed by th....