- (1.) Even though this Rule which was obtained on September 22, 1976 was made ready as regards service on March 5, 1981, and there have 5 to 9, Mr. Majumdar being assisted by Mr. Ganguly appeared for respondent No. 5 only, at the time of hearing of the matter. Other respondents, including the State and Central Government respondents have neither appeared nor opposed the prayers as made or have filed any opposition.
(2.) The petitioner, Chitavalsah Jute Mills Co. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the said petitioner), is an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and it has been stated that they had advertised and invited offers in the issues of the Statesman, Calcutta, for sale of 3 plots of land, being plot Nos. 5, 10 and 11 hereinafter referred to as the said lands) at premises No. 57B, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to the said premises), of which the petitioners have also claimed to the owners. It has been stated that in response to such advertisement, the petitioners received various offers for the said plots and ultimately they agreed to accept the offer made by one Anand Chand Bhura, respondent No. 6 and to sell to him or his nominee the said plot and the offer as made by the said Sri Bhura was approved at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the said petitioners, as held on March 15, 1973. The respondent No. 5, Kamal Kumar Surana, for whom Mr. Majumdar is appearing was the nominee of the respondent No. 6. It was the case of the petitioners that such acceptance was duly communicated and informed to the said Sri Bhura. The respective agreed prices for sale have been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the petition and the said petitioners have also stated that a Bank draft for Rs. 21,000/-, which was sent by the said Shri Bhura, was adjusted towards earnest money, for securing the concerned sale.
(3.) The said petitioners have stated that pursuant to such agreement for sale, the said Shri Bhura, in or about October, 1974, requested the petitioner to execute three deeds of conveyance in respect of the said plots and to which the said petitioners had also agreed. It was their case that in or about October, 1974, the said petitioners duly applied to the Income Tax Authorities, for the issue of necessary certificate of clearance under the Income Tax Act, to enable them to execute the concerned deeds and such certificate, was also duly issued by the Income Tax Authority concerned. But the deeds of conveyance in question, could not be registered as the verification of title by the intending purchasers, had not been completed. It was also the case of the said petitioners that in the meantime on or about November, 1974, at the request of the purchasers or the persons in whose favour the conveyances were required to be executed, vacant possession of the said plots were delivered and after taking such possession, the purchaser or the allottees as nominated by them, also exercised their acts of possession. These apart, the said petitioners have also stated the other actions, necessary for completion of the transactions, were also duly taken by them.;