2011 (7) TMI 1356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated 24.3.2005. The High Court set aside the auction and further held that respondents no. 5 & 6, who had subsequently purchased the property from auction purchaser had no right to retain the possession of the property of the company. In paragraph 63, it was held as follows: In view of the findings arrived at here-in-above, the writ petition consequently succeeds and is allowed and the entire proceedings finalized in favour of respondent no. 3 including the execution of the sale deed are hereby quashed. As a consequence thereof, the respondent nos. 5 & 6 are also not entitled to retain possession of the property as the sale deed executed in their favour on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al before the Supreme Court against the order of Division Bench dated 24.3.2005, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 1702 of 2006. In the civil appeal an interim order of status-quo was passed initially but the same was finally dismissed vide judgement and order dated 16th September, 2010. The Company itself was wound up under Section 433 of the Companies Act vide judgement and order of Company Court dated 22.8.1996. In view of Section 456 sub-clause(1) the Official Liquidator by operation of law comes into possession of the assets of the company which had been wound up. The Official Liquidator should have taken possession of the properties of the company in question. However, such has not been the fact situation, as the Officers ....