TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 374
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an affidavit, authored by Ms. Anita Meena, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10(1), C.R. Building, New Delhi has been filed on 17.03.2017, in terms of the directions issued by this Court by way of order dated 08.03.2017. However, the same is not on record. 2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Income Tax Department has handed over copies of the said affidavit dated 17.03.2017, in Court today. 3. Counsel appearing for the other parties pray for time to file a response thereto. 4. Let the response be filed within a period of four weeks from today with an advance copy to counsel appearing on behalf of the Income Tax Department, who may file rejoinder thereto, if any, before the next date of hearing. 5. The present petition has had a chequered history as would be evident from the following recital of the procedural facts. 6. A perusal of the decision of the Division Bench, dated 22.08.2013, in CO.APPL.26/2011, CO.APPL.7989/2011, titled as "M/s Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. vs. The Official Liquidator and Ors.", and in CO.APPL.27-29/2011, 8728/2012, 8729/2012, 8730/2012 and 8731/2012, titled as "The Delhi Automobiles Ltd. vs. The Official Li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be sold under the supervision of the Court ... ..." c) On 03.02.1998, Mr. G.S. Suri sought to withdraw the statement he had previously made on 02.02.1998, on the ground that he had made the same without requisite authority from the Board of Directors of DAL, the company which owned the subject property. However, this Court vide order dated 03.02.1998, was pleased to hold that the request to withdraw the statement made by Mr. G.S. Suri, as recorded in the said order dated 02.02.1998 and in particular, the part pertaining to attachment of the subject property, would be considered only if a review of the said order dated 02.02.1998 was sought. d) On 20.02.1998, this Court modified its previous order dated 02.02.1998, directing that the said order dated 02.02.1998 would have no effect till the next date of hearing i.e. 22.05.1998, by which date GAL was directed to make all efforts to repay its creditors, failing which it shall be deemed to be wound up. e) On the next date of hearing i.e. 22.05.1998, no reference was made in the order of the even date qua the subject property, except for a direction to the effect that "....the order dated 20th February, 1998 needs no variati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2011 (whereby this Court directed that the subject property stood attached and was liable to be sold; as recorded in sub-paragraph (h) hereinabove) was carried in appeal by both, Taneja and DAL before the Division Bench and came to be decided by the abovementioned order dated 22.08.2013. 7. A further perusal of the said order dated 22.08.2013 reveals that the principal submission made on behalf of DAL before the Division Bench, was to the effect that the so-called deemed attachment of the subject property, directed by way of order dated 02.02.1998, was stayed by the Court on 20.02.1998 till the next date of hearing, and on the next date i.e. 22.05.1998, the Court directed that "...the order dated February 20, 1998 needs no variation.". This submission, as urged on behalf of DAL, was founded on a reading of the following orders of this Court: i. Order dated 02.02.1998 (relevant portion of which has been extracted in sub-paragraph (b) of paragrah (6) hereinabove); ii. Order dated 03.02.1998 (whereby the request to withdraw the statement made by Mr. G.S. Suri, as recorded in the order dated 02.02.1998, was directed to be considered only if a review of the said order dated 02.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Govind, sought time to submit that the order dated 02.02.1998 ought to be reviewed. (f) The consequence of the previous orders, especially the order of winding up in a pre-emptory manner, (which was part of the composite order rendered on 22.05.1998) has not been disputed. Equally, the order sheet in the company's winding up proceedings reveals that the attachment of the suit property was never vacated or modified. (g) The review petition and a subsequent application for amendment thereof, made by DAL were rejected. The effort to revive those applications was also unsuccessful. DAL had earlier appealed, albeit unsuccessfully, against the order of 02.02.1998, to the Division Bench. 10. In view of the foregoing findings, the Division Bench negated the submissions made on behalf of DAL as well as Taneja, that the attachment order passed with respect to the subject property could not bind them. 11. Consequently, the appeals of DAL as well as Taneja were held to be meritless and rejected. Resultantly, the order dated 04.04.2011 under appeal, inasmuch as, has levied the attachment on and directed to the Official Liquidator to take possession and sell the subject property....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned Senior Counsel representing Taneja and DAL respectively, state that the above order, insofar as it records that "there is no further appeal pending as on date", is incorrect, inasmuch as, Special Leave Petition Nos. 32508/2013 & 36873-75/2013 have been instituted by the latter, assailing the decision of the Division Bench dated 22.08.2013. However, it is an admitted position that till date, there is no order of stay qua the directions issued by this Court by way of order dated 04.04.2011, which merged into the decision of the Division Bench dated 22.08.2013. 14. However, for reasons best known to the Official Liquidator, which need not be gone into at this juncture and which may require calling for an appropriate explanation during the course of the present proceedings; no steps whatsoever were taken by the Official Liquidator to secure the possession of the subject property. 15. Subsequently on 11.09.2014, on the report of the Official Liquidator being OLR 145/2014, this Court rendered the following order: "Report No.145/2014 The Official Liquidator has filed the report indicating the amount admitted by the Official Liquidator towards t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Delhi. Renotify on 21st January, 2015." 16. In order to effectively adjudicate the submissions now made on behalf of the counsel appearing on behalf of DAL and Taneja, it would be profitable to extact the relevant portion of report No.145/2014, filed on behalf of the Official Liquidator as follows: "7. That as per direction of this Hon'ble Court of order dated 18.02.2014 it is submitted that in response to the notices advertised by the Official Liquidator on 10.04.2008, inviting the claims it had received the claims from the creditors of the company. The claims received by this office were scrutinized/examined and adjudicated as per law. The claims adjudicated and settled as detailed as under: UNSECURED CREDITORS:- S.No. NAME OF AMOUNT CLAIMED AMOUNT ADMITTED REMARKS 1. Ms. Kalpana Jain 3,92,370/- 87,247/- Admission letter issued on 12.11.08 2. Dr. A.P. Jain 29,52,430 6,50,472 Admission letter issued on 12.11.2008 3. Shri Alok Jain 12,85,490/- 2,84,365/- 12.11.2008 4. Shri Chitra Jain 9,06,762, 4,20,460 12.11.2008 5. Dr. A.P. Jain & Sons (HUF) 2,05,829/- 45,709/- Admission letter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dmission letter issued 17. Sh. Raj Singh 41,201/- 43,221/- Admission letter issued 18. Sh. Dinesh Chandra 89,8592/- 31,907/- Admission letter issued 19. Sh. Prem Ram 54,172/- 50,032/- Admission 20. Sh. Bhagwan 1,63,872/- 15,972/- Admission letter issued That subsequently this office of Official Liquidator received following more claims i.e. from employee S.No. NAME OF CLAIMANTS AMOUNT CLAIMED REMARKS 1. Sh. Mangat Ram (Employee) (Claim submitted on 09.03.2004) 54,277.33 Claimant has been asked to provide the document to proof his debts. 2. Mr. Mahavir Singh (Employee) (Claim submitted on 09.03.2004 received from JVG Section 07.01.2013) 37,012/- Claimant has been asked to provide the document to proof his debts. 3. Mr. Sanil (Employee) (Claim submitted on 09.03.2004) 35,433/- Claimant has been asked to provide the document to proof his debts. 4. Mr. Gyan Chand (Employee) (Claim filed after due date) Amount not specified Rejected as the claimant has not got the delay condoned. 5. Mr. Akali Singh (Employee) (Claim filed after the due date) Amount not spec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 16. That The total liability of the company as per the claims admitted by the Official liquidator toward the unsecured creditors and the workmen comes to Rs. 6,42,63,759.15. It may be pointed out that adjudication of the claim by the Official Liquidator are further subject to appeal in this court as provided under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules 1959. It may also be stated that amount admitted do not include any component of interest. However, to balance of equities for all parties, this court may consider grant of some interest. However, Rule 156 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 provides the payment of interest to the maximum of 4% on any debt or certain sum, payable at a certain time or otherwise where on interest is not reserved or agreed for, and which is overdue at the date of the winding up order and the creditors for major debts have been given interest in terms of decree awarded in their favour." 17. A plain reading of the above paragraphs of the report No.145/201....