TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (5) TMI 338
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....copy of the valuer's report relied upon in the official liquidator's affidavit-in-reply has this to say on the matter : "Factory - Units-I and II at Kalyani - Factory units-I and II of the aforesaid liquidated company have been established on monthly rental basis in the Kalyani Industrial Estate. The verbal informations what I have gathered from Sri Tanmoy Bhattacharjee, SAE, officer-in-charge of Kalyani Industrial Estate Phase II, under West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Government of West Bengal, that the total number of sheds let out to the said liquidated company is about five (S2 to S6) having covered an area of about 79,173 sq.ft., and uncovered area of 1,69,692 sq.ft. It further appears from him that the monthly shed rent inclusive of land rent is about Rs. 9,133 per month. Municipal tax apart from this is about Rs. 6,802 per month. Outstanding arrears of rent and municipal taxes reportedly lying against the name of the said liquidated company are about Rs. 25,48,227 and Rs. 15,78,129, respectively, for the period ending January, 2004. Besides these rental sheds for the smooth functional requirements of the manufacturing jobs, the aforesaid company made s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e first property referred to is as follows : "Factory sheds S2 to S6 - covered area about 79,173 sq.ft. Uncovered area about 1,69,692 sq.ft." 7. There appeared no reservation in the advertisement, something that the ultimate purchaser now complains of, to indicate that such factory sheds bearing Nos. S2 to S6 were not being sold or that they could not be sold. The purchaser may be right when it asserts that on the strictest reading of the advertisement, it would appear that the entirety of the immovable assets of the company (in liquidation) at the Kalyani Industrial Estate including factory sheds S2 to S6, was being offered for sale. 8. How such sheds could be put up for sale despite the same having been specifically excluded in the valuer's report and despite the valuation of the assets of the company (in liquidation) not including the value of such sheds, is a question that the official liquidator will have to answer at the appropriate stage. To carry on with the chronology of events, the sale was fixed before the court on the basis of the advertisement and upon the court receiving an offer that bettered the valuation found in the valuer's report, the offer was accepted and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p for recovery of the land in question as they may be advised in accordance with law." 11. The official liquidator, thus, was not required to do anything in the matter. He had, as he had represented before the appellate court, sold the assets of the company (in liquidation) (read, made over possession) to the purchaser and it was for the purchaser to understand the effect of the liberty or the right reserved in favour of the Corporation in the appellate court order of 30-8-2006. But the official liquidator took upon the moral responsibility of ensuring that the purchaser obtained what the court sold to it. The official liquidator applied, seeking the following orders : "(a)Leave be granted to make this application; (b)Delay, if any, in making this application be condoned; (c )An order be passed directing respondent No. 1 to hand over and to disclose the documents in respect of its claim in regard to the landed property as also the structures being S2 to S6 having an area of 79,173 sq.ft. (covered), 1,65,692 sq.ft. (uncovered) and 2,355 sq.ft. (office space) within such time as this hon'ble court may deem fit and proper; (d)An order be passed directing respondent No. 1 to demar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were handed over to the purchaser aforesaid on or about 24-2-2005, I crave leave to refer to the minutes of the handing over possession of the assets of the company (in liquidation) to the purchasers at the time of hearing. 7. I say that respondent No. 1 West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd., had made an application under section 535 of the Companies Act, 1956, for disclaimer of shed Nos. S2 to S6 of Administrative Building, Kalyani on or about July, 2003, by taking out a judges summons supported by an affidavit of one Kamal Kanti Roy affirmed on 8-5-2003." 14. The Corporation, the purchaser and a bank [possibly the only secured creditor of the company (in liquidation)] were arrayed as the respondents in this application. The Corporation responded by setting out the circumstances in which, according to the Corporation, this misconceived application was made by the official liquidator. According to the Corporation, upon it taking action pursuant to the right recognised by the appellate court order of 30-8-2006, and proceeding not against the official liquidator but against the purchaser, the official liquidator jumped into support the purchaser. The pendency of....