GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have arisen at the instance of the State challenging the two orders dated 24.10.2008 and 4.3.2009 made by the learned single Judges of this Court in C.A. No. 662 of 2007 in CP. No. 5 of 1994 whereby confirmation of sale was made by the former order, while a direction was issued to the Official Liquidator to execute the sale deed jointly along with the Department of Industries and Commerce of the Government of Tamilnadu in favour of the purchaser or her nominees by the latter order.

(2.) The Court heard the learned advocate General for the State, Mr. V. Prakash, learned senior counsel for the 2nd respondent and the Official Liquidator. The Court perused all the materials available including the orders under challenge.

(3.) The application was made on the following facts and circumstances. Pulsar Electronics Limited was allotted a plot in the Electrical Industrial Estate at Kakkalur vide allotment order No. 107857/EL1/86-1 dated 16.6.1987. The extent of land was 5 acres at Rs. 3 0,000/- per acre subject to the condition that the cost of the land is liable to upward revision and the land allotted should be used for the purpose which was specifically allotted. On a further request made by the appellant dated 2.6.1988 seeking for allotment of a further extent of 0.8 acres which was continguous to the aforesaid 5 acres of land and the request was favourably considered and the allotment of the additional extent was made as per letter dated 1.7.1988. thus the extent of 5 acres and 80 cents of land was allotted to the applicant. Subsequently, an assignment deed was executed in favour of Pulsar Electronics Limited vide assignment deed dated 24.9.1987 containing so many clauses inter alia, if any there is violation of any one of the condition stipulated therein, the assignment is liable to be cancelled and the said plot should vest absolutely with the Government free from encumbrance after forfeiture of the earnest money deposit. By issuing reasonable notice notwithstanding anything found in the Clauses of assignment, the Director of Industries and Commerce might cancel the assignment and repossess the same. The department also approved the building plan for construction of office premises in the allotted plot and the same was approved by the Superintending Engineer, Industrial Estate, Guindy. The final cost of the developed plots have not been arrived at and collected from the assignee at the time of allotment. While the matter stood thus, the Assignee Company went on liquidation. CP. No. 5 of 1994 was filed. The Official Liquidator, pursuant to the orders of the Court, took possession of all the assets of the Company under liquidation. On coming to know about the steps taken by the Official Liquidator, the Department filed an application before the Court to grant permission to repossess the land assigned to the Company under liquidation. The application was returned. In the meanwhile, the Official Liquidator/first respondent effected publication by way of sale notice, pursuant to the order passed by the Court on 24.3.2007 for the sale of the immovable property namely 5.8 acres of land with a partly finished building measuring an extent of 18,862 sq.ft. fixing the reserved price for the land and building at Rs. 1.5 crores. After following the procedural formalities by calling for tenders in respect of the assets belonging to the Company in liquidation, the highest offer came from one Dhanalakshmi, Madras for a sum of Rs. 3.40 crores since the same was found to be the highest offer, the same was accepted and the same made in her favour was confirmed in Application No. 662 of 2007 by order dated 24.10.2008 and consequential orders were also made therein. Following the same, further orders came to be passed on 4.3.2009 whereby a direction was issued to the Official Liquidator to hand over possession and the documents pertaining to the property and execute necessary conveyance/sale deed jointly with the Department of Industrial and Commerce, Government of Tamil Nadu in favour of the purchaser or her nominees. Challenging the above orders, these two appeals have arisen.