FAIRDEAL SUPPLIES LTD. Vs. K. ARUMUGAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed the present appeals against an order dated 17.02.2014 passed by learned Company judge while dealing with the application filed by the workmen, contending that the property sold to them through a negotiated sale has not been fully conveyed to them. The matter has chequered history qua the sale of the assets of the company in Liquidation M/s. SIV Industries limited. The land, superstructure and machinery thereof was originally sought to be auctioned in 2007 when the appellant before us bid 240 Crores for them but later tried to backtrack. The appellant had also deposited Rs. 23.5 Crores and continued the battle till the Honourable Supreme Court but unsuccessfully. The resultant situation was that the amount deposited by the appellant was forfeited and a fresh auction has to be held.

(2.) The fresh auction was in pursuance of the advertisement published in the Times of India dated 22.2.2009 In terms thereof, an extent of 253. 89 acres of land and building there on was sought to be sold on? as is where is basis? with the total upset price fixed at Rs. 100 Crores. However, it appears that there was no response to the notice and ultimately the major secured creditors M/s. ARCIL proposed a negotiated sale for Rs. 101 Crores, once again in favour of the appellant. This proposal was accepted by the learned Company Judge by order dated 26.3.2009 the full price was paid and possession was taken over.

(3.) The matter did not end there, as the workmen Association filed the C.A. No. 1048 of 2010, seeking an auction of land measuring 7.33 acres in S.P. No. 39 and 40, as according to them, this is the land under the officers Quarters, which did not form part of the sale transaction. The appellant on the other hand also filed C.A. No. 316 of 2013, seeking execution of the sale deed in their favour, inclusive of 7.41 acres of land, These two applications have been dealt with in the common impugned order. There was an interim order operating during the pendency of these applications, not to demolish the structure on 7.41 acres and in order to facilitate the transfer at least of the undisputed land and superstructure there was an agreed arrangement, whereby a sale deed had been executed to the extent of land measuring 246.05 acres with superstructure thereon-together with building on 7.41 acares of land. The net result was that while the superstructure over 7.41 acres of land was conveyed the land was not conveyed. The possession of the superstructure has also been handed over to the appellant.