Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 4622 (MAD)

Narasimhan v. Official Liquidator High Court

2014-12-18

M.SATHYANARAYANAN, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

body2014
Judgment Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. M/s. Viswadharshan Distributors Private Limited faced a winding up order dated 5.6.2002, in Company Petition No.138 of 1996 with the Official Liquidator being appointed as the Provisional Liquidator and thus, no legal proceedings could be instituted against the company in liquidation without leave of the Court under Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. Despite this legal position, the appellant instituted a suit in O.S.No.118/2011, on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Lalgudi for permanent injunction in respect of the lands owned by the company predicated on a plea of being a cultivating tenant and obtained an ex-parte decree on 29.11.2011. 2. The Official Liquidator moved an application before the Company Court as in the meantime, the property in question had been brought up for sale and sold to a third party with the transaction being completed. Thus, in a way, there was an obstruction being created for the purchaser to enjoy the property. 3. The learned Company Judge has opined that the second respondent before us, is the successful bidder in the auction, who has paid the entire consideration, and a sale deed has been executed in his favour. The appellant was claiming to be a cultivating tenant; but, it was conceded that the name of the appellant was not entered in the record of tenancy rights as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969. It is only a person whose name is entered in the record of tenancy rights, who is capable of seeking statutory protection. Despite this, taking a lenient view of the aspect of there being standing crops, the impugned order dated 18.11.2013, granted time to the appellant to harvest the crops by 31.1.2014, with a direction to him to hand over possession to the auction purchaser. 4. The appeal, though filed in time, has been brought up before us for the first time today. The possession has been handed over after harvesting of the crops. 5. On hearing the learned Counsel for appellant, we are of the view that no infirmity can be found with the impugned order on any account whatsoever. The very statutory right of the appellant is available only in case the appellant was recorded as a tenant, which, admittedly, is not the position in the present case. 5. On hearing the learned Counsel for appellant, we are of the view that no infirmity can be found with the impugned order on any account whatsoever. The very statutory right of the appellant is available only in case the appellant was recorded as a tenant, which, admittedly, is not the position in the present case. Thus, the statutory protection claimed by the appellant is not available to him. This is, of course, apart from the fact that the legal proceedings initiated by the appellant is more than nine years, after the company had gone into liquidation and without leave of the Company Court. 6. We find no merit in the appeal. 7. The original side appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed.