OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S. STAR SPIN AND TWIST MACHINERIES LTD. (IN LIQN.) Vs. M.J. MEHTA & CO. AND KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the Official Liquidator in C.A. 1458/07 and the learned Senior Advocate Shri S. Vijayashankar, appearing for the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1. The present application in C.A. 1458/07 is filed in the following background:

(2.) THE said application has been opposed and it is contended on behalf of the KIADB by the learned Senior Advocate Shri S. Vijayashankar that the lease in favour of M/s. M.J. Mehta and Company was duly determined and resumption of the land was notified as per show cause notice dated 29.3.1996, out of the total extent of 150 acres and 26 guntas, which was allotted to the lessee M/s. M.J. Mehta and Company, an extent of 95 acres and 26 guntas has been resumed by the KIADB and the lands have been subsequently allotted to various entrepreneurs and the remaining extent of 55 acres, out of which a part is the subject -matter of the present application, the Board after having terminated a lease insofar as the original lease deed in favour of M/s. M.J. Mehta and Company is concerned, in terms of Annexure -R dated 25/2/2000, had proceeded to take possession of the above extent. The remaining extent, including the portion which is the subject -matter of the present application, could not be resumed in view of the proceedings pertaining to the units which were in their occupation, pending before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR, for brevity), in a proceeding bearing No. 30/97 and 29/98. It is in this background that the KIADB stayed its hand in proceeding to resume possession of the remaining extent and after the proceedings before the BIFR culminated, there were proceedings initiated by recourse to the provisions of Section 4 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants); Act, 1974, to which the Official Liquidator had replied indicating that the company in liquidation has been wound up and therefore the matter is pending in proceedings before this court.