Subsequently, the Liquidator sought direction of the companyrt on April 25, 1979 whether the premises should be let out on lease or licence or whether the furniture and fixtures in the premises should be sold ?
Appellants preferred an appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 1st July, 1982 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
Ltd. The Company had undertaken the business of floating prize chit schemes.
On July 2, 1980, the Liquidator sought the direction of the Court whether to accept the offer of M s Modern Caterers represented by respondent No.
These are the reasons.
V. Patel, T. U. Mehta, H. J. Zaveri for the Appellants.
P. Malhotra, P. H. Parekh and Ms. Indu Malhotra for Respondent No.
2 Smt.
215 of 1981.
8 and 9, the premises involved in this appeal.
The Company is already ordered to be wound up by the order of the Court dated September 23, 1974.
When hearing was over.
1,50,000 by or be fore March 1, 1983 in this Court.
1, 50, 000 to be deposited by the appellants in this Court will with the companysent of the appellants be disbursed according to the direction to be given by this Court to the needy and the deserving creditors of the Chit Centre Pvt.
28,800 deposited by the second respondent with the liquidator.
we pronounced the following order and stated that the reasons would follow.
The Company had its office in shops bearing Nos.
we proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.
2 herein, Smt.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL Appeal No.
The appellants shall deposit Rs.
8/9 on the ground floor of the building formerly known as Jagmohan Building No.
The Company Judge by his order dated July 3, 1980 directed the Liquidator to accept the offer as modified by the Court of the second respondent.
It is in this manner that the Liquidator acquired possession of shops Nos.
l. R Lalit V. N. Ganpule and Mrs. V. D. Khanna for Respondent No.
2 or as Ayaz Mansion number known as Ram Kutir.
The Court gave a direction that the premises be given on caretaker basis after obtaining a proper document on a companypensation number less than Rs.
J. As the matter brooked numberdelay, after granting special leave to appeal.
8 and 9 on the ground floor of the building formerly known as Jagmohan Building No.
The order reads as under The appeal is allowed and the order made by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court rejecting the Judges Summons taken out by the appellants is set aside and the Judges Summons is granted to the extent indicated herein.
On respondent No.
Respondent No.
Sabita V. Adapa shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the property being a shop Nos.
2, 250 per month.
2609 of 1983.
On a winding up petition filed under the Companies Act, 1956, a learned Company Judge of the Bombay High Court made an order on September 23, 1974 winding up Chit Centre Private Ltd. Company for short .
Pursuant to this direction the Liquidator invited offers from persons willing to occupy the premises on terms and companyditions laid down by the Court.
Appellants herein are the Landlords of the building of which the premises involved in this appeal formed part.
Ltd. The distribution of the aforesaid amount will be at the absolute discretion of this Court.
2 or as Ayaz Mansion and number styled as Ram Kutir situated at Station Road, Andheri, Bombay 400058 to the liquidator on or before February 28, 1983 who shall forthwith hand over possession on March 1, 1983 to the appellants, after taking a statement from the appellants that they have deposited the amount Rs.
The appeal is allowed to the extent herein indicated with numberorder as to companyts.
Appellants took out Judges summons praying for a direction to the Liquidator to terminate the caretakers agreement entered into with the 2nd respondent under the directions of the Court, and to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the appellants.
1, 50, 000 in this Court as herein indicated.
Ltd. already ordered to be wound up by the High Court.
There were other prayers in the Judges summons with which we are number companycerned in this appeal.
The Liquidator there upon entered into an agreement on July 29, 1980 with the second respondent and gave possession of the premises to the second respondent on terms and companyditions set out in the agreement.
On the winding up order being made, the official Liquidator who was appointed as Liquidator of the Company while taking possession of the assets of the Company also took possession of the office premises of the Company.
2 will be at liberty to remove all furniture and fixtures placed by her in the suit shop without Causing damage to the property.
Sabita V. Adapa.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
