LIBRA PLANTATION LTD., IN RE Vs. ABC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant herein has moved this Court to direct the Official uidator to remove the seal fixed on 3-6-1998 on premises belonging to the applicant which are described as Godown Nos. 2 and 3, Dhiraj Apartment, 'C' Wing, Poddar Park, Malad (East), Bombay - 400 097 and to handover possession thereof to the applicant herein. In support of the application, the applicant has filed an affidavit of Smt. Kaushalya a Jogani, Trustee of the applicant-trust. It is the contention of the applicant that the trust purchased the said property by an agreement dated 27-3-1984. Annexed with the said agreement is a copy of Form No. 37EE to indicate that the permission of the income-tax authority was taken for the purchase of the said two godowns. It is further averred that the applicant allowed the company to use the said premises for some time.h is thereafter contended that the company used the said premises for the years 1995, 1996, 1997 and thereafter vacated the premises and handed them over to the owner the applicant herein. It is further contended that the company in liquidation before this Court was incorporated in year 1993. In these circumstances, it is pointed out that the documentary evidence would clearly establish that it is the applicant who are the owners of the property and in view of that application ought to be allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

(2.) The Official Liquidator has been appointed as a provisional Liquidator of the company Libra Plantation Ltd. He has put his seal on the premises on 3-6-1998.

(3.) Another relevant matter to be considered is the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 16-6-1998 filed by the SEBI against Libra Plantation Ltd. and others. In the said order one of the directions given is that the Dy. Commissioner of Police with the assistance of the Auditors, papers and inventory of the properties belongings to respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 and attach the properties belonging to them. This direction has been given to find out whether the properties belonging to the respondent- company are siphoned off by the Directors. The further direction is that the Deputy Commissioner of Police inquiring into the matter would only attach the property and not dispossess the person in possession after preparing the necessary Panchanama. The respondent No. I is a company in liquidation. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the Directors who are also the beneficiaries of the trust property and respondent No. 7 is also one of the trustees of the trust and is also a Director of the company. The Official Liquidator has also in the supplemental affidavit pointed out to the directions issued by the Division Bench in writ petition which have been referred to earlier and in the alternative he has pointed out that if then is any direction to handover possession back of the premises than the books of account, records, etc. be handed over to Crime Branch, C.LD, Bombay with further direction to the Crime Branch to allow inspection of the said records as and when required by the Official Liquidator.