MICRONIX INDIA Vs. DISCO ELECTRONICS LTD
LAWS(DLH)-1996-9-48
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on September 13,1996

MICRONIX INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
DISCO ELECTRONICS LIMITED Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RASHTRIYA MILL MAZDOOR SANGH NAGPUR VS. MODELMILLS NAGARPUR [REFERRED]
ITO ERNAKULAM V. OL,PALAI CENTRAL BANK LTD. [REFERRED]
FORWARDING (0) LTD. V. PORT TRUST OF VIZAKPATNAINAND ORS. [REFERRED]
ARYAVARTA PLYWOOD LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION) V. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INVESTMENTS CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. [REFERRED]
THOTA CHINA SUBHA RAO AND ORS. V. MATTAPALLI RAJUAND ORS. [REFERRED]
INCOME TAX OFFICER V. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR (KERALA) [REFERRED]
VADERVU SURYANARAYANA V. KOCHERLAKATA VENKATA SUBBARAO AND ANR. [REFERRED]
FRUIT AND VEGETABLE MERCHANTS UNION VS. DELHI IMPROVEMENT TRUST [REFERRED 13. RASLITRIYA MILL MAZDOOR SANGH (SUPRA) (3984) 3COM. L. JOURNAL 249.469]
GANGA DHAR VS. SHANKAR LAL [REFERRED]
TAHSILDAR SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. HIRA LAL KEJRIWAL [REFERRED]
S GURMEJ SINGH VS. S PRATAP SINGH KAIRON [REFERRED]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL PLAINTIFF THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR THE STATES OF MADHYA PRADESH THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR THE STATES OF ASSAM THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR THE STATES OF ORISSA THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR T VS. UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFE [REFERRED]
DAMJI VALJI SHAH GHANSHYAMDAS VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIAIN BOTH THE APPEALS :LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIAIN BOTH THE APPEALS [REFERRED]
S V KANDEAKAR VS. V M DESHPANDE [REFERRED]
MAHARAJ SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
NARANDAS KARSONDAS VS. S A KAMTAM [REFERRED]
SUPDT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS WEST BENGAL VS. ANIL KUMAR BHUNJA [REFERRED]
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA CHANDRASEKHAR BOSE VS. D J BAHADUR:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. LABOUR COURT MADRAS:CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT [REFERRED]
JAYASINGH DNYANU MHOPREKAR VS. KRISHNA BABAJI PATIL [REFERRED]
BALASINOR NAGRIK COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED VS. BABUBHAI SHANKERLAL PANDYA [REFERRED]
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED]
SUBASH KUMAR VS. PRINCIPAL OFFICER MERCANTILE MARINE DEPARTMENT MADRAS [REFERRED]
VATTICHERUKURU VILLAGE PANCHAYAT NORI MADHUSUDAN VS. NORI VENKATARAMA DEEKSHITHULU:VATTICHERUKURU VILLAGE PANCHAYAT [REFERRED]
KALAWATIBAI VS. SOIRYABAI [REFERRED]
INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS. SRINIVAS AGENCIES [REFERRED]
INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR [REFERRED]
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. ASIA UDYOG PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED]
COMRADE BANK LIMITED IN LIQUIDATION VS. JYOTI BALA DASSI [REFERRED]
KARNATAKA BANK LTD VS. CRAFT TOOLS PVT LTD [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

J. K. MEHRA, J. - (1.)In this case the Official Liquidator haschallenged the sale of certain properties of the company in respectwhereof Official Liquidator had been appointed as the Provisionalliquidator, purported to have been affected by Delhi FinancialCorporation limited (hereinafter referred to as "the DFC") inexercise of its powers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act.
(2.)After the arguments, I was informed that similar controversyis pending decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and I should awaitthe outcome thereof. Now, counsels have pointed out that theHon'ble Supreme Court has since decided the matter in the case ofIndustrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. M/s.Srinivas Agencies & Ors.. reported as 1996 (3) Supreme 400).Mr. Nayar, counsel for the Official Liquidator, concedes that thecontroversy before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not identicalwith the questions arising in the present case as would 'appear fromthe discussion appearing hereinafter.
(3.)Briefly stating the facts of the case are as under :-The Company "Disco Electronics Ltd." (hereinafter referredto as "DISCO") had created a mortgage in favour of theDelhi Financial Corporation to secure loan facilitiesobtained by it on 20-1-1986. On 4/7-12-1990, theDFC on account of unsatisfactory operation and thedefaults committed by the company recalled the loan.This notice was followed by another notice of 2 9/10/1991 threatening to take possession of theUnit at premises No. A-83, Okhia Industrial Area,Phase-11, New Delhi and the machinery installed atA-84 Okhia Industrial Area, Phase-11, New Delhi. Afterthe DFC had resumed possession under Section 29 ofthe State Financial Corporation Act, the DISCOapproached the DFC with the proposal that it shouldcarry out the sale of the said property and in fact produced an intending purchaser namely M/s. ShivalikTraders for settling dues of the Corporation, but despitethe Corporation having agreed to accommodate DISCOthe said purchaser failed to honour its commitments asa consequence whereof possession of the said property No.A-83 Okhia Industrial Area, Phase II together with themachinery lying at A-84 Okhia Industrial Phase-11 wastaken over by the Corporation on 23-2-1992. DISCOhad undertaken to retain the possession for and onbehalf of the DFC. In other words, DISCO continuedto be in possession, but only as custodian on behalfof the DFC which means that DISCO continued to holdthe property though as agent of the DFC and for andon its behalf. The said properties were advertised forsafe by the DFC on 4-6-1992 .iiid llic sul.c wus conducted in the office of the DFC on 22-6-1992 whenthe highest bid of Rs. 18 lakhs was received. TheDFC called upon DISCO to produce a higher bid ifthey wanted to do so. Thereafter, one Mr. Vinod Guptamade an offer of Rs. 20 lakhs. However, this bidderaftersome time withdrew his offer in view' of the DFChaving received an offer of Rs. 28.5 lakh's on 23-9-1992whieh offer was accepted by the DFC.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.