- (1.) Leasehold land of the company (in liquidation), its value on surrender of the lease is the question involved. Ms. Doshi, learned advocate appears on behalf of State of Madhya Pradesh and submits, question was left open to be decided by Court vide order dated 28th November, 2018 passed in APO 364 of 2018/ACO 38 of 2018 in inter alia CA 55 of 2018 (Government of Madhya Pradesh, through Collector Dist. Ujjain vs. The Administrator of the Specified Undertaking of the U.T.I.). Mr. Sen, learned advocate appears on behalf of secured creditor and submits, his client on obtaining valuation report found, market value of the land given at almost Rs.21 crores but was reduced by expenditure deduction to result at a little over Rs.12 crores. This valuation is incorrect. Mr. Prasad, learned advocate appears on behalf of workers and submits, Government of Madhya Pradesh must pay surrender value of the land at its correctly valued market price. His clients, the workers, are starving.
(2.) It would be relevant to reproduce from order dated 28th November, 2018. The following from it as an extract: "The real issue is the quantum of money that the State of Madhya Pradesh will pay for the official liquidator surrendering the leasehold land. It is the State's contention that the terms of the agreement provide for the manner of assessment of the surrender value. On the other hand, the secured creditor respondents assert that the present market value should be taken into consideration for the purpose. These are questions that have to be dealt with by the company Court and no opinion is expressed thereon at this stage. Suffice it to say that upon a final decision being passed by the company Court, it will be open to the parties to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of as premature, but with the observation that no final decision pertaining to the Ujjain property will be made by the company Court without notice to the State of Madhya Pradesh. APO No.364 of 2018 and ACO No.38 of 2018 are disposed of."
(3.) Since Mr. Sen has disputed correctness of the valuation report, his client is at liberty to obtain valuation, as second opinion, for Court to consider. Surrender value, whether should be at a valuation of market or any other rate is the issue to be decided by this Court. Submissions will be heard on adjourned date. List on 5th July, 2019. ;