- (1.) The Court: Parties have been heard in continuation of their contentions recorded in order dated 11th April, 2019.
(2.) Mr. Chowdhury learned advocate appearing on behalf of the administration in Madhya Pradesh submits, he has a point of demurer on maintainability of winding up proceedings to entertain and adjudicate these pending applications. He refers to order dated 14th March, 2011 of a co-ordinate Bench, which contains, inter alia, direction upon applicant in CA 891 of 2010 to pay consideration of Rs.2,04,74,053 to official liquidator for obtaining possession of land belonging to the company (in liquidation). This, because possession is with official liquidator. He points out from said order, there was direction for all proceedings against the company (in liquidation) being stayed. He submits, that amounts to altogether stay of winding up and hence, applications filed post that order cannot be entertained nor adjudicated. To substantiate his submission he hands up copy of order dated 5th December, 2011 passed in CA 891 of 2010, in which following was said by another co-ordinate Bench. "Since I cannot persuade myself to accept the previous orders passed on this application, particularly without apparent notice to all creditors and contributories of the company in liquidation, on grounds of conscience I release the matter. All parties are to act on signed photocopies of this order on the usual undertakings." On merits Mr. Chowdhury submits, specific case of his client is, of 259.582 hectares of land claimed by the company (in liquidation), only 166.594 hectares belong to it. For this he relies on communication dated 26th December, 2015, made by Office of Sub-divisional Officer (Revenue), Tahsil - Raghurajnagar, District Satna to concerned Collector (page 90). Referring to affidavit-in- opposition filed by applicant in CA 891 of 2010 he points out, this is an admitted position. Though the company (in liquidation) has claimed 259.582 hectares of land but said applicant is claiming to be put in possession of 319.291 hectares of land! He submits further, his client's application is founded on discovery of mistake in handing over excess land to official liquidator. In paragraph 12 of the affidavit, mistake by omission in the record, showing the company to have only 166.591 hectares of land, has been alleged. No direction should be made in respect of land in addition to 166.591 hectares of land admittedly belonging to the company (in liquidation), without Court obtaining satisfaction regarding ownership on title documents. He seeks orders in terms of prayers in his client's application, which prayers include payment of a sum of money. Mr. Chowdhury clarifies, the sum claimed is on account of land revenue. Applicant in CA 891 of 2010 cannot feign ignorance regarding whereabouts of title documents. Said applicant is a major contributory of the company (in liquidation), per paragraph 20 and disclosure in its application.
(3.) Ms. Sikdar learned advocate appears on behalf of official liquidator. She submits, land was given possession by the administration in Madhya Pradesh, to her client. Application by letter for direction has been filed for leave to her client to give possession of this land to applicant in CA 891 of 2010, on consideration received from it. She submits further, there has been no mistake on part of her client in dealing with the matter. On query from Court she submits, of consideration received there has been disbursement to leave balance of Rs.1,52,57,677/- . Ms. Sikdar submits still further, her client acted on directions of Court and pursuant to acts of the administration. Whatever lands administration gave possession of to her client, her client is holding onto and has prayed for leave to in turn put applicant in CA 891 of 2010, in possession thereof.;