TATA STEEL LTD. Vs. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a disclaimer application with a twist. The applicant seeks a direction on the official liquidator to make over possession of the concerned premises to it with knowledge that it is not the official liquidator who is in actual possession of the premises.

(2.) THE applicant insists that even without its endeavour being facilitated as it has been in this case, it is entitled to seek not only a direction on the official liquidator to surrender the rights of the company in liquidation in respect of the property in its favour but also seek a direction on the official liquidator to remove the trespasser from the premises and make over possession. The answer to such issue need not be given in these proceedings by reason of the fortuitous event that overtook the question.)

(3.) THE applicant asserts that the official liquidator has no use of the land for the beneficial winding up of the company and the funds in the hands of the official liquidator, and likely to come out of the assets of the company, would not permit the official liquidator to discharge the onerous covenant of paying lease rent in respect of the premises. There is also an earlier suit instituted by the applicant, with leave obtained under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'), praying for a decree of eviction against the official liquidator as custodian of the assets of the company in liquidation, but the applicant has elected to proceed with this later application and abandon the suit.