IQBAL HUSSAIN Vs. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ravi Kant, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Rohit Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Ashok Mehta, learned counsel for the Official Liquidator and Sri C. B. Gupta, learned counsel for the British India Corporation Limited, Kanpur.

(2.) THIS is an appeal against an order of the learned Company Judge dated 5. 2. 2009 by which the Official Liquidator has been allowed to evict the persons in occupation of certain bungalows which according to the Official Liquidator are the bungalows of M/s Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Limited a Company, which has been ordered to be wound up by an order passed on 18. 8. 1998. Under Section 456 (1-A) of the Companies Act the court can direct the District Magistrate to take possession of the properties of the company and deliver possession to the Official Liquidator. The appellants were not parties in the company proceedings and they are aggrieved by the direction of the learned Company Judge that the District Magistrate, Kanpur and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur will give all assistance to the Official Liquidator in discharge of the duties to get the property of the company vacated forthwith. According to the appellants the bungalows in dispute are not the properties of M/s Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Limited and as such the Official Liquidator has no right to evict the appellants. Sri Ashok Mehta, learned counsel for the Official Liquidator on the other hand submitted that some of the appellants the employees of the M/s Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Limited while other are legal representative of ex employees of M/s Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Limited or mere unauthorized occupants. A question of title has therefore arisen in this case. The learned company judge has clarified that if any person has any objection to the order of eviction or to any claim with regard to possession, he may approach the court by filing appropriate application and showing title but it will not arm such person to obstruct in any manner the eviction proceedings. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have not yet filed any application before the learned Company Judge against the eviction order. Their grievance is that the learned single judge has given a direction for eviction and the appellants apprehend that they would be evicted even before the matter is heard by the learned Company Judge.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that in view of the clarification already made in his order by the learned Company Judge the appellants can approach the learned Company Judge with an appropriate application demonstrating their title. Sri Ravi Kant, learned senior counsel for the appellants stated that the appellants will make individual application before the learned Company Judge and file material in proof of their respective title/claim within a period of ten days from today. In case such an application is filed within this time the eviction of the appellants shall remain stayed for a period of three weeks subject to such order that may be passed by the learned Company Judge on the stay application filed by the appellants. With the above directions the appeal is disposed of.