TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ismanshu Pal, Neerja Sharma, Rajesh Kumar, Gaurav Kumar Singh, Rakesh Chaurasiya, Anant Gautam, Yashraj Singh Deora and Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, ORDER 1. Leave granted. These appeals have arisen from judgment dated 3rd August, 2012 passed by Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in A. Talukdar & Co. (Fertilizers) (P.) Ltd. v. Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta 120 SCL 40 (Mag.) respectively. 2. The question for consideration is whether the Company Court could evict persons, who have occupied property of a company after commencement of winding up proceedings, on such company being revived under the order of the Company Court. 3. The appellant-company was directed to be wound up by order dated 9th November, 1998 in Company Petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... its assets. 6. The Division Bench had before it the above appeal of the company claiming that it was entitled to be restored the possession of the entire property of the company and not merely the property in possession of the official liquidator and three appeals filed up occupants of the premises belonging to the company, claiming the right to continue in possession. The Company Judge found that though M/s. Hindustan Bone Mills, a partnership firm claimed that it was in possession of the part of the premises prior to the Company being sent to liquidation, none of the occupants was in possession prior to commencement of winding up. They entered in possession after the winding up order. 7. The stand of the occupants was in two parts. One....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....could thus be not construed as a condition upon vacating of the premises in question. We respectfully defer with Mr. Bhattacharya on that score. It would thus take care of the issue relating to Section 536(2).' 9. We did not find any reason to interfere with the above finding and have dismissed the SLP (C) Nos. 33660-33663 of 2012 and SLP (C) Nos.38562-38565 of 2012 filed by the said two occupants. 10. As regards the other set of three occupants (Royal Blue, Magnet and Narmada) who had not given undertaking but who claimed to have come in possession under an arrangement with Hindustan Bone Mills who was in possession prior to the winding up, it was held :- 'Royal Blue, Magnet and Narmada : Let us now apply the law as understood ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bone Mills and issued the alleged receipt dated 5th November, 1998 and the proceedings were commenced on 9th January, 1998 which is squarely false within the purview of Sections 531, 532A and 536 of the Companies Act, 1956". We would thus find that as per the record of the Official Liquidator the tenancy was created after commencement of winding up proceeding. In the subsequent Letter for Direction dated May 21, 2010 the Official Liquidator asked for eviction of three occupants being Narmada, Magnet and Royal Blue. Learned Judge directed notice to be served upon the occupants as we find from the order dated June 11, 2010. In view of the change of determination the said Letter for Direction came before another learned Judge on July 16, 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vide order dated September 6, 2010. We also find that Talukdars also brought one person by the name of Ranjit Bhowmick and reconstituted the partnership only in 2008. Ranjit took possession and immediately created further encumbrances by handing over possession to five occupants including Royal Blue Accessories, Magnet and Narmada and immediately disappeared from the scene as his whereabouts were not known at least nobody informed us. We also find that the application for setting aside the order of winding up was filed by Talukdars having Tapash on their side. Hence, if the occupants would say, Talukdars got the share from Ranjit when they paid hefty amount to Ranjit in coming into possession, it could not be brushed aside. Their possessio....