VIJAY KUMAR DHANDA Vs. SEHGAL PAPER LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Company Appeals Nos. 9 to 14 of 1984, because they raise common questions of law and fact and the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that they be heard together.

(2.) THE appellants are owners of different flats on the second floor of Skylark Building, 60, Nehru Place, New Delhi. These flats were leased out to M/s. Sehgal Papers Ltd. , respondent-company, for a period of three years.

(3.) THE respondent-company, took possession of the premises in dispute on January 23, 1979. The respondent-company defaulted in the payment of rent. The appellants were thus constrained to file proceedings for the ejectment of the respondent-company before the Rent Controller, New Delhi. Subsequent to the filing of the ejectment applications, the respondent-company went into liquidation. This court thus ordered the official liquidator to function as the provisional liquidator, vide orders dated March 15, 1983. In fact, numerous winding-up petitions were filed in the High Court for the winding-up of the respondent-company, which are still pending. Under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, no suit or legal proceedings pending against a company, for which official receiver has been appointed, shall be proceeded against the company, except by the leave of the court, which has appointed the provisional liquidator. Realising that on the appointment of a provisional liquidator for the respondent-company, its ejectment proceedings shall come to a standstill, the appellants filed applications in the High Court for permission to continue with the proceedings pending before the Rent Controller or the withdrawal of the cases for trial by the High Court. Vide orders dated August 5, 1983, of this court, the ejectment applications were ordered to be transferred to the High Court for trial. The cases have been received in the High Court on transfer. Notices were also issued to the liquidator and he was required to put in his written statement. In the meantime, one Shri M. M. Bengal filed an application under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking approval of the High Court for his scheme to put the company back into production. This petition is pending consideration. Shri M. M. Sehgal filed another application, wherein it was prayed that till the decision of his application for revival of the company, the proceedings or suits pending in various courts including the High Court may be stayed. That application is pending decision. However, on March 13, 1984, the learned single judge, who was seized of the matter, ordered that the ejectment applications should be adjourned sine die and they be listed after the decision in Company Application No. 200 of 1983. Aggrieved by these orders, the appellants have filed these appeals.