Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 352 (PAT)

Misrilal Jain (P) Ltd. v. Nacro Chemicals Ltd.

2010-03-12

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. The interlocutory application has been tiled by one Meena Devi whose husband Uma Shankar Bhagat was the highest offerer of Rs. 99,00,000/- for the assets of the company in liquidation situated at Fatuha Industrial Area, Patna, Plot No. N.S. 9. The said assets were directed to be transferred to him by order dated 15.2.2007 of this Court. Subsequently the physical possession was also handed over on 19.4.2007 and the Deed of Assignment was registered on 17.12.2007 in the name of the present applicant Meena Devi after obtaining the orders of this Court. The main contention of the applicant is that she had applied for No Objection Certificate from the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) but the same is not being given. 2. The stand taken by the BIADA in its reply and supplementary reply is that any such transfer of the name of the applicant can only be done, pursuant to the policy decision taken by the BIADA from time to time, i.e., on 18.10.2003 and subsequently reiterated on 12.3.2004 (Annexure J/1), 28.7.2007 (Annexure-Q) and 11.10.2007 (Annexure-Q/1); under the said decisions, the applicant is liable to pay the charges in terms of the formula fixed by the BIADA. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the BIADA that the applicant is liable to pay the charges to BIADA in terms of the policy decision taken by BIADA from time to time and only on such payment, the name of the applicant shall be mutated in the registers of BIADA and the No Objection shall be issued. In support of the said stand learned counsel for the BIADA relies upon a decision of this Court dated 9.7.2009 passed in I.A. No. 1145/2009 in Company Petition No. 1/1991 In the matter of Hathwa Metals & Tubes Limited (in liquidation) in which this Court had held as follows:- "On a consideration of the rival submissions this Court is inclined to agree with the submissions of learned counsel for the SPIADA. So far as the past dues owed by the Company in liquidation is concerned, the same cannot be claimed by the SPIADA, once the order of winding up of the Company has been passed, from any auction purchaser and such claims being against the company in liquidation, they can only be made under the present proceedings by filing the claim like any other creditor of the Company in liquidation before the Official Liquidator. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the SPIADA is permitted to file its claim before the Official Liquidator within a period of six weeks from today with respect to its past dues pertaining to the company in liquidation. So far as the challenge to the letter dated 15.7.2007 is concerned, it is true that a similar letter issued by the Bihar Industrial Area Developmen Authority has been set aside by this Court in Badri Mehrotras case (supra) but the same issue does not pertain to company proceedings. The applicant-company having purchased the assets of the company in liquidation is required to obey all local and national laws for the purpose of running its industry in the State of Jharkhand. Hence, the said plea of the applicant-Company is rejected. However, it is made clear that it is open to the applicant-company to contest the said demands of SPIADA before the appropriate forum. I.A. No. 1145/2009 is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the authorities of SPIADA to transfer the name of the applicant-company in its registers in place of the company in liquidation without insisting on payment of the past dues of the company in liquidation but subject to other terms and conditions applicable for the said purpose." 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has sought to contest the aforesaid stand of the BIADA stating that she being the purchaser of the assets of the company in liquidation in the course of winding up proceedings, the aforesaid policy decision of BIADA cannot be applied to her. However, learned counsel for the applicant is unable to show how the present case differs from the aforesaid decision of this Court dated 9.7.2009. 5. However, learned counsel for the applicant is unable to show how the present case differs from the aforesaid decision of this Court dated 9.7.2009. 5. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the BIADA that the original purchaser Uma Shankar Bhagat had himself approached the BIADA with a request that first his name should be transferred in their registers in place of the company in liquidation and thereafter the transfer should be made in the name of his wife, the present applicant and the BIADA has already issued orders in this regard subject to the original purchaser and the applicant meeting the demands raised by the BIADA as aforesaid. 6. In view of the fact that this Court has already decided the said issue, the present matter is also disposed of in similar terms. The BIADA is directed not to raise demand of any past dues of the company in liquidation from the present applicant. It is further directed to transfer first the name of the first purchaser Uma Shankar Bhagat and then the name of the present applicant, Meena Devi, wife of Uma Shankar Bhagat in its registers in place of the company in liquidation without insisting on payment of past dues of the company in liquidation but subject to other terms and conditions applicable for the said purpose. 7. It is however, made clear that it would be open to the applicant to contest the said demands of BIADA in appropriate proceedings. 8. I.A. No. 6250 of 2009 is accordingly disposed of.