I.P.MUKERJI,J. - (1.) The applicant is a purchaser of some assets of the company (In Liquidation). They include the factory premises at Taratolla Road, Kolkata and Biren Roy Road, (West) South Shibrampur, Kolkata. The dispute is with regard to the Biren Roy Road property.
(2.) The sale was confirmed by this Court in 2007. The conveyance was executed on 4th September, 2008. This application was filed on 12th May, 2011. The principal allegation is that the land is recorded as agricultural land and the applicant is unable to make any use of it for industrial purposes. It is said that it is only recently that the applicant realised this, at the time of mutation activity in the land department.
(3.) Mr. Basak for the State opposes this application with great fervour. First of all, he submits that this land was sold on 'as is where is basis'. The purchaser took it with his eyes open. He knew or ought to have known that the land was recorded as agricultural land. On that footing he had taken the land. Now, this purchaser cannot turn around and complain against agricultural land having been conveyed to him. He cites the case of United Bank of India v. Official Liquidator and Ors. decided by the Supreme Court and reported in 79 Company Cases 262. He cites the following passage at page 272. "When the official liquidator sells the property and assets of a company in liquidation under the orders of the court he cannot and does hold out any guarantee or warranty in respect thereof. This is because he must proceed upon the basis of what the records of the company in liquidation show. It is for the intending purchaser to satisfy himself in all respects as to the title, encumbrances and so forth of the immovable property that he proposes to purchase. He cannot after having purchased the property on such terms then claim dimunition in the price on the ground of defect in title or description of the property. The case of the official liquidator selling the property of a company in liquidation under the orders of the court is altogether different from the case of an individual selling immovable property belonging to himself. There is, therefore, no merit in the application made on behalf of Triputi that there should be a dimunition in price or that it should be made liable to pay interest on the sum of Rs. 1 crore 98 lakhs.";