Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1383 (MAD)

Anish Orchardes Private Ltd. Rep. by its Director S. Bhavani v. Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras as Provisional Liquidator of Maxworth Orchards (India) Ltd. Orchards (India) Ltd. Rep. by Administrator K. Alagiriswami

2020-08-28

N.SATHISH KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT : (Prayer : Company application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Sections 9, 11(b) of Companies Court Rules, 1959, to recall the order, dated 02.08.2019 made in Company Application No.174 of 2019 in Company Petition No.57 of 1998.) This matter has been listed today in additional list on being mentioned by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicants. 2. It is the contention of the learned Senior counsel that though status quo order has been passed by this Court, at the instance of the first respondent, the applicants' people was taken into custody by the police on 27.8.2020. It is the contention of the learned Senior counsel that the applicant running Power Generation Company from the year 2000 in the petition mentioned property. There are agreement entered into between the Government and the applicants and that itself indicate that they are in possession of the property. Taking advantage of the status quo order, police harassed the applicants. 3. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that there is law and order problem took place in the petition mentioned property. About 70 to 80 people were trying to trespass into the property which was already under the control of the learned Official Liquidator and the police intervened only to prevent trespass into the property. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the possession is not with the applicants. 4. The main dispute seems to be with regard to the title of the property. It is the contention of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant that they have purchased the property and they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the properties. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the property is a company property and after the company went for liquidation, Official Liquidator was appointed, therefore, such sale is not valid. It is also relevant to note that the application also filed to recall the order passed by this Court, dated 19.8.2020 and the matter was adjourned to 07.9.2020, since the counsel appearing for the parties on either side submitted that they would take steps to bring Comp. A.No.189 of 2013 before this Court with the permission of The Hon'ble Chief Justice. 5. A.No.189 of 2013 before this Court with the permission of The Hon'ble Chief Justice. 5. Taking note of the seriousness of the matter and the submissions made by both sides, in order to ascertain the true facts under dispute, this Court is of the view that Advocate Commissioner has to be appointed to visit the schedule mentioned property. Accordingly, this Court appoint Mr.Somasundar Enrolement No.1308 of 1992 Mobile No.9074937525 and Mr.Vasanthakumar Enrolment No.1970/2005 9443199510 as Advocate Commissioners to visit the petition mentioned properties in Survey Nos.531 to 534, 536, 539 to 566 situated at Damara Bheemanapally Village, Marriguda Taluk, Nalgonda District situate within the Sub Registration District of Devarkonda and Registration District of Nalgonda to find out as to whether any solar power generation company is running in the premises as stated by the applicant and file a report. The fee of the Advocate Commissioners is fixed at Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy five thousand only) each. The same shall be borne by the Applicant apart from the travel and incidental expenses. The commissioners shall visit the suit properties after giving notice to both sides. The Advocate Commissioners are also permitted to take aid of the concerned police officer, i.e., The Superintendent of Police, Nalakonda District in the event of any assistance is required in executing the warrant. If any such request is made by the Court Commissioners, the Superintendent of Police concerned is directed to give necessary instructions to the police to give necessary protection to the Commissioners. The Superintendent of Police also required to file report as the nature of cases pending in the matter. Post on 7.9.2020 for filing report by the Advocate Commissioners.