VITIR CHATTELS P LTD Vs. AUTHENTIC GEAR PVT LTD
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
VITIR CHATTELS (P) LTD.
AUTHENTIC GEAR PVT. LTD.
Click here to view full judgement.
SWATANTER KUMAR, J. -
(1.) This company appeal is directed against the order of the Company Court
dated 7th August, 2006.
Vide order dated 23rd November, 2001 passed in CA 1780/2000 in CP No.
40/1998, the Official Liquidator was appointed as Provisional Liquidator to take
charge of assests as well as books of accounts and other moveable and immoveable
assets of the company. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the
company, which was disposed of vide order dated 9th January, 2002. Pursuant to
the order of the Division bench, an application was moved for review of order
dated 23rd November, 2001, which was allowed vide order dated 10th September,
2004 In the meanwhile, however, the Official Liquidator pursuant to the
directions given in the order dated 23rd November, 2001 sealed the building
known as Nulon House, Ishwar Nagar, 10th Milestone, Delhi Mathura Road, New
Delhi as there was no stay in respect of the directions given in the order dated
23rd November, 2001. The sister concerns/companies filed an application being
CA 969/2003 stating that the Official Liquidator had wrongly sealed the premises
of these concerns. This application was allowed vide order dated 24th August,
2004 with the direction to the Official Liquidator to de-seal and give
possession thereof to the applicants. An incidental question was arose with
regard to payment to the security agency, which had been deployed after the
Official Liquidator had sealed the premises. The applicants companies without
prejudice to their rights agreed that they shall make payment of the security
charges to the Official Liquidator. However, they did not make the payment.
Thus, the premises were not de-sealed by the Official Liquidator.
After the review application was allowed by the company Court vide order
dated 10th September, 2004, the applicants filed a review application being CA
1195/2004 seeking modification of the order dated dated 24th August, 2004, which
was disposed of vide order dated 2nd March, 2005. It was noticed in the order
that payments shall be made and it was clarified "Since this order was made on
the concession given by the applicant, the applicant cannot seek modification of
this part of the order. This application is accordingly dismissed". The
applicants had deposited the security charges. However, they filed an
application being CA 1180/2005 for refund of the amount deposited towards
(2.) The contention of the applicants (sisters concern) was that they were not
liable to pay the security charges as their premises were wrongly sealed by the
Official Liquidator. All these contentions were considered by the company Court
while passing the earlier order and particularly the statement of the learned
counsel appearing for the company as recorded in the order dated 24th August,
2004 The order dated 2nd March, 2005 and for that matter the order dated 10th
September, 2004 was never assailed by the applicants before any appropriate
forum. The application for refund has, thus, rightly been rejected by the
company Court as the applicants by their statement as well as conduct cannot be
permitted to get themselves relieved from the obligation imposed upon them
under earlier orders passed by the Court. The argument that payments were made
without prejudice is again without merit inasmuch the above statement of the
counsel was recorded in the order dated 24th August, 2004 and was reiterated in
the order dated 2nd March, 2005.
(3.) The appeal is, thus, without any merit and is dismissed in limine, while
leaving the appellant to bear their own costs.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.