- (1.) The Court : This appeal is directed against an order dated 28th March, 2019 by which the application filed by an alleged erstwhile employee of the company (in liquidation) was allowed in part. However, the possession of the flat in question was not restored to the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved by the said order since the appellant has strenuously contended before us that once the learned Judge was of the considered opinion that the initial order could not have been passed ex parte and without notice to the appellant, the learned Judge ought to have allowed the application by restoring possession of the flat to the appellant.
(2.) The present appeal is a manifestation of tricks that are played by the management by setting up employees to create encumbrance in the property so that the creditors are deprived of their legitimate dues. It is not in dispute that Bengal Paper Mills Company Limited has gone into liquidation and there are large numbers of creditors against the said company. A unique story has been spun by the present appellant of a tall claim of ownership of the flat in question in lieu of retiral benefits. The appellant has failed to furnish any satisfactory evidence to that effect. On repeated questions being asked, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has feebly responded to such queries by referring to few tailor-made correspondence which we assume to be anti- dated and at the behest of unscrupulous persons of the company (in liquidation) with the connivance of the present applicant to create an impediment to the sale of the property in question in justification of its claim for possession and restoration of possession. The flat in question is situated at Worli, Mumbai. The flat all throughout belonged to the company (in liquidation).
(3.) The appellant claimed to be in possession at the relevant time. It is contended that the appellant continued to reside in the flat and applied for membership with the cooperative society of the apartment, in which the flat is situated. According to the learned counsel, by an order dated 5th May, 2017, the Official Liquidator took possession of the flat. His client has obtained membership of the cooperative society, the said order should be recalled and other prayers made in the Judge's Summons should have been allowed. The learned Judge took into consideration all the relevant factors including the contention put forward by the appellant before His Lordship that the membership was granted in revision of order of refusal, on execution of a bond. It is an admitted position that the applicant by bond dated 3rd December, 2004 indemnified the society that in case the company, now in liquidation, either claims the flat or raises objection for transfer of it in favour of applicant, he should bear all the legal expenses for contesting the claim of the party.;