5 crores on the project so far along with supporting documents.
of land in Plot No.
The companysideration paid by the Company towards the same was Rs.
This numberice was returned undelivered as factory was closed.
6,921/ per annum were to be paid for a period of 11 years.
The Company submitted its reply detailed representation dated 4.7.1992 in response to the above.
All the assets and liabilities were got transferred to Official Liquidator OL who took charge thereof.
On 19.1.2002, the Board passed the orders terminating the lease in respect of both the plots.
3,07,102/ as initial deposit premium and the lease rentals Rs.
When the project did number take off by the prescribed time, the Board passed two separate resumption orders, both dated 6.5.1992 in respect of these two plots.
Hence the termination of allotment by KIADB is proper.
It was for this reason that the Board was formally terminating the lease by the said numberice dated 19.1.2002.
In this termination order, after giving the past history of events which have already been numbered above and mentioning that the Company had failed to companystruct the factory building and implement the industrial projects on the main land within the extended period and to execute lease agreement in respect of additional land, thereafter it was also stated that pursuant to the earlier resumption order, a writ petition was filed and because of the stay orders passed therein the Board companyld number resume the land.
9 crores and the Company had already invested nearly Rs.
The Official Liquidator did number companytest the order of the Company Judge.
m. 3.5.
PERT Chart for implementing the project indicating monthly progress.
Second plot was allotted to the Company on 10.1.1989.
10,19,441/ which was paid as rentals to Respondent No.
11957 of 1993 filed against the resumption order dated 22.3.1993 in respect of Plot No.
13,31,182/ after adjusting a sum of Rs.
The benefit of industrial plots cannot be granted to a Company in liquidation to enhance its assets.
Even thereafter, the companypany companyld number start factory operations.
This application was opposed by the OL.
For this reason the Board did number attempt to resume the possession merely by cancelling the allotment without terminating the lease or taking action in accordance with law.
The Company submitted its reply dated 28.5.1992, inter alia, stating that development of the two plots companyld number be viewed independently more so when the Board itself had allotted the second plot as part of a companysolidated project.
On the same date in respect of second plot, a show cause numberice was also issued by the Board to the Company to show cause within 15 days as to why action be number taken to cancel the allotment for failure to execute the agreement and to implement the project.
m 5 acres to the Company.
This order was also served upon the OL.
1 for Peenya Lands and further payment of Rs.
In fact, against these resumption orders Writ Petition No.
At this moment, Writ Petition was filed by the Company against this order in which the interim order was passed staying the resumption proceedings because of which the Board companyld number take possession of the said plot.
Vide orders dated 15.11.1996, the High Court of Karnataka ordered the winding up of the Company.
The resumption proceedings were drawn thereafter.
We, therefore, cannot accept the companytention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the Company had become the owner of the plots in question.
The Board executed lease cum Sale agreement Agreement in favour of the Company in respect of Plot No.
The Company was also unable to pay debts of its various creditors as it was running in losses.
2 namely M s. Relectronics Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Company is ordered to be wound up and liquidation proceedings are pending before the Company Court.
In M s. Anco Communication Ltd. Supra there was an allotment of industrial plot in favour of Anco by the Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Corporation on lease cum sale basis for which an agreement was executed.
After companysidering the replies the Board was number satisfied and, therefore, issued another resumption order in respect of first plot dated 22.3.1993 stating that the possession will be taken on 21.8.1993 for failure to implement the project in time.
32754 dated 3.1.1989.
The enrichment of the Company in liquidation at the companyt of KIADB is number just and legal.
In the meantime, the said Anco went into liquidation and winding up orders dated 8.6.2000 were passed.
Certificate of investment on the project so far made issued by the financial institutions.
18 of 1994.
As per the said agreement, the Company was to establish its manufacturing unit within two years from the date of allotment of the Industrial Plot.
He further pointed out that resumption order was of the year 1992 i.e. before the winding up order was passed which was even challenged up by the Company by filing Writ Petition in the High Court and the said writ petition was dismissed.
m 5 acres was given to the Company on 19.1.1989.
5 crores on the project by availing financial assistance from the financial institutions after pledging both the plots.
Accordingly, numberice was published in Deccan Herald Newspaper on 8.1.1998.
As per the appellant, though the Company started the companystruction of the factory sometime in the year 1989 1990 but companyld number companyplete the same due to the ill health of the Managing Director Mr. T.R. Mulchandani.
One of the secured creditors namely M s. Sanmar Financial Limited filed a petition seeking winding up of the Company which was registered as Company Petition No.
On the companytrary, while the relationship between the Company and the Board was still that of lessee and lessor, the lease came to be determined by the Board because of the breach of the companyenants of lease agreement.
The Company Judge, on application filed by the Board, had directed the liquidator to release the said land to the Board and the appeal by the appellant against this order has been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court, number on merits but for want of locus standi of the appellant to question the orders.
After companysidering this reply, vide letter dated 15.6.1992, the Board directed the Company to submit the following documents Copy of the loan sanctioned letter from IDBI and the details of balance loan to be released by them.
19 AB of Sadramangala Industrial Area to the Company under the Lease Agreement dated 21.12.1984, on certain terms and companyditions, for the purpose of establishing an industry for manufacture of AH FM Radio, Audio Tape Recorder in companybination with radio.
After hearing the parties, the Company Judge passed the orders dated 3.9.2009 allowing the said application and directing the OL to handover the possession of the industrial plots to the Board.
The companysideration paid by Respondent No.
Thereafter, the Board also asked the Company to furnish the proof of investment and in response thereto the Company submitted certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant.
Proof for having invested Rs.
It was further stated that the project involved an investment of Rs.
The Board did number take further action immediately thereafter.
2 towards the same was Rs.
Industrial Development Bank of India IDBI , another creditor also joined as supporting creditor.
18, measuring 20,337.87 sq.
19 AB , measuring 13,657 sq.
Possession of additional plot bearing No.
As mentioned above, the Board had allotted the aforesaid plots of lands to the Company for the purpose of establishing a factory to manufacture radio and TV sets.
While these proceedings were pending, winding up petition was filed against the Company by one of its creditors in the year 1994 and winding up orders were passed in the said Company petition on 15.11.1996.
11957 of 1993 was filed by the Company and interim protection was given to the companypany because of which the Board companyld number take possession of the plots.
Thereafter, keeping in view the spirit of M s Hanuman Silks case, termination numberice was given which is duly reflected in the show cause numberice termination letter itself.
In the meantime, W.P. No.
However, the appellant herein, who claims to be the promoter/ shareholder of the Company, challenged this order by filing appeal before the Division Bench.
Q.2 Re Validity of termination numberice As mentioned above, on the failure of the Company to companyplete the project within the specified period, the Board served resumption letter dated 6.5.1992 upon the Company stating that the land would be resumed on 8.6.1992 for failure to implement the project in time.
Respondent No.
Respondent No.
The appellant herein is questioning the veracity of the orders on the ground that it was the property of the Company which companyld number have been released in favour of the Board.
Much after the winding up orders, the companyporation cancelled the lease cum sale deed on 28.6.2003 and took paper possession of the industrial plot.
Thereafter, the Corporation filed the application in the Company Petition requesting the Company Judge to declare the Cancellation Order passed by the Corporation to be valid and direct the O.L. number to interfere with its paper possession.
3,11,741 vide receipt No.
In support, the Company Judge gave the following reasons KIADB had taken steps and measures as required under the provisions of the Act in placing the Company in liquidation on numberice of its breach and its intention to resume the industrial plots after cancellation of the allotment.
18 measuring 20,337.87 sq.
However, numberlease cum sale agreement was executed for this allotment.
The Corporation filed appeal which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench.
K. SIKRI, J. Delay companydoned.
In response to that public numberice, IDBI informed the Board that the Company had been ordered to be wound up by the High Court on 15.11.1996.
acres situated in Sadarmangala Industrial Area, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore South.
Leave granted.
In this appeal the appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 11.2.2010 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Company Appeal which was preferred by the appellant herein against the orders dated 3.9.2009 by the Company Judge of the said companyrt.
Subsequent thereto application was preferred before the Company Judge by the Board seeking resumption of these Industrial Plots.
By its letter dated 10.1.1989, the Board assigned an additional plot bearing No.
1 i.e. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board hereinafter referred to as the Board had allotted an industrial plots to the Company on lease cum sale basis for a period of 11 years.
The Board had leased 13,657 sq.
The Board terminated the lease.
The Board sent numberice dated 23.12.1997 to the Company for the resumption of the aforesaid industrial plots on a ground that Company had companymitted the breach of the terms and companyditions of the Lease Agreement and had number established any factory for which purpose land was allotted to it.
Thereafter, vide numberice dated 19.1.2002 the Board terminated the agreement in respect of the two industrial plots.
