BALKRISHNA T THAKKAR Vs. SANRHEA TECHNICAL TEXTILES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by one of the shareholders of M/s Mahendra Mills Ltd. (Company in liquidation) challenging the order dated 14. 6. 2005 made by the Company Court in Company Application No. 310 of 2001. The appellant was not a party before the Company Court in the proceedings of Company Application No. 310 of 2001 and hence, vide order dated 6. 10. 2005 made in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 104 of 2005, leave to file appeal having been granted, the present appeal has been preferred.

(2.) THE case of the appellant, in nutshell, is that the respondent No. 1 herein, who was leased out a certain part of the property of the Company in liquidation, was wrongly permitted by the learned Company Judge to purchase the leased out property at a price which was not the market price, and in the alternative, was wrongly permitted to renew the lease vide the impugned order dated 14. 6. 2005.

(3.) AS against that, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 herein, original applicant of Company Application No. 310 of 2001, submitted that the lessee had, in the first instance, sought permission from the Company Court for purchasing the property from the Official Liquidator and even today, is ready and willing to purchase the property at the market price, which may be determined in a public auction, giving first right to the lessee to purchase the property after the market price is so determined. It was further submitted that an application was moved by way of Civil Application No. 381 of 2007 which is pending as of date, seeking extension of lease which has since expired on 31st October, 2007. It is an admitted position that the said lease has been extended by way of interim relief vide order dated 29. 10. 2007 made in the said Civil Application, whereunder the Official Liquidator has been directed not to take any coercive steps till the next date of hearing and the said interim relief continues till today. That in the circumstances, it was submitted that the lessee may be permitted to pursue the application for extension of lease before the learned Company Judge, or the lessee may be permitted to purchase the property, as suggested earlier. However, in any event, the submission goes, the appeal is otherwise liable to be dismissed in absence of any error committed by the learned Company Judge.