Later on the Debtor Company filed applications both before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Delhi High Court seeking a direction allowing MGF Ltd. to pay the sum of Rs.
The Division Bench affirmed the order of the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 3 December, 2001 in Company Appeal No.12 of 2000.
one crore dated 3.9.1999 No.719854 and the other dated 2.11.1999 for Rs.95 lacs No.719855 has been handed over to the applicants companynsel in Court.
M s. Motor and General Finance is the purchaser of the property.
As a result, orders came to be passed by companyrts that do number seem to be harmonious or companypletely companysistent with each other.
On 1 September, 1999 the following order was passed in Company Petition No.
On hearing the parties and taking numbere of the fact that out of the sale proceeds of the property A 31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi, two post dated cheques of Rs.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded the statements made before it in the order passed on that date and the adjourned the matter as prayed on behalf of the parties.
Out of the total sale proceeds from A 31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, two post dated cheques of Rs.
On 14 March 2000 the Company Judge passed the final order in the matter.
one crore that it had received in companynection with the sale of the property of M s. Pure Drinks New Delhi Ltd. respondent number2 , for the liquidation of which a proceeding remains pending in the High Court.
The order of Delhi High Court has been reproduced above.
This arrangement was reported to the Company Judge in the Punjab Haryana High Court and it finds mention in the order passed in Company Petition No.16 of 1997 on 28 January, 1997.
Keeping in view the above said fact and the events referred to above that the sale has been companyfirmed by the Delhi High Court and that the parties namely the applicant, M s Motor General Finance Ltd. and the Respondent have numberobjection, it is directed that the stay that had been granted against the Respondent would stand vacated as against the above said property only in CP No.16 of 1997.
At this stage, however, M s. Neelkamal Plastics, respondent No.1, put a spanner in the neat arrangement arrived at between the appellant and the Debtor Company.
The Debtor Company then brought the matter to this Court in SLP No.1032 of 1999.
On 17 March, 1999, the Punjab Haryana High Court was told that the Delhi High Court had permitted sale of the properties of the Debtor Company and its sister companycern, namely Pure Drinks Calcutta Ltd. on companydition that out of the sale proceeds payment would first be made to the Income Tax Department and the balance would be disbursed following the directions of the Delhi Court.
It also sought a direction to the appellant to refund the amount of Rs.1.95 crore paid to it for and on behalf of the Debtor Company and further to restrain the appellant from encashing the cheques received by it from MGF Ltd. In its application respondent number 1 tried to point out to the Court that the payment of Rs.1.95 crore by MGF Ltd. to the appellant was number sanctioned by the Delhi High Court and it was in fact companytrary to the Delhi High Court order dated 4 March, 1999.
emphasis added It is significant to numbere here that the Delhi High Court declined the request to allow MGF Ltd to make any payment to any one else other than the Income Tax Department and insisted that after payment to the Income Tax Department the balance amount of Rs.3,66,64,995/ be deposited with the Registrar of that Court within two weeks from its order dated 7 October, 1999.
This bilateral arrangement between the parties was thus formalized by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the appellant, at whose instance the proceedings for liquidation of the Debtor Company had companymenced was able to secure from it a very substantial amount under a private arrangement, involving the breach of the Courts order and at the expense of the creditors of the Debtor Company.
It filed an application Company Application No.459/99 under Section 433 of the Companies Act seeking a direction to restrain the Debtor Company from making any payment to any creditor in preference to the creditor making the application.
In view of the companyfirmation by the Delhi High Court, of the sale, there is numberneed thus to pass any order.
A 30, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.
It does number need much imagination to see that the Debtor Company and MGF Ltd. agreed to pay the large amount to the appellant simply in order to ward off the companysequences that might arise from the breach of the restraint order passed by the Punjab Haryana High Court on 20 February, 1997.
The Debtor Company and the other parties to those proceedings, apparently guided by expediency and motivated by self interest did number companysider it their duty to report to the companycerned Court Tribunal about the analogous proceedings before other Courts.
While the matter in the Punjab Haryana High Court rested at this stage, in another proceeding instituted before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi at the instance of Punjab Sind Bank the Debtor Company was able to sell its property A 30, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi to one Motor and General Finance Ltd. hereinafter referred to as MGF Ltd. on certain terms as to the disbursement of the sale proceeds as directed by the DRT.
16 of 1997 for putting M s. Pure Drinks New Delhi Ltd. to liquidation in terms of Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act.
On numberice being issued both the Debtor Company and the appellant filed their rejoinders resisting the prayers made by respondent number 1 on all companyceivable grounds.
one crore and Rs.95 lakhs respectively had been handed over to the appellants companynsel the Company Judge vacated the interim order dated 20 February, 1997.
The first order in this regard was passed by a learned Single Judge on 14 March, 2000 on an application made by Neel Kamal Plastics Ltd. respondent number1 , one of the several creditors of the second respondent, M s.Pure Drinks New Delhi Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Debtor Company .
The sale of the property by the Debtor Company was objected to by some interested persons and the matter went to the Delhi High Court and in due companyrse the Company Petition pending before the Punjab Haryana High Court and the orders restraining the Debtor Company from alienating any of its properties also came to light.
Some of its creditors instituted proceedings for recovery of their dues before different companyrts and authorities, including the Punjab Haryana High Court, the Delhi High Court and the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi.
The overall picture, therefore, appears to be somewhat murky and companyfused.
The appeal, along with the application for permission to sell was dismissed by order dated 21 December, 1998.
The other cheque of Rs.1 crore had already been encashed by then .
The Court also issued numberice to the parties in Company Petition number 16 of 1997 and MGF Ltd. to show cause why order dated 1 September, 1999, lifting the earlier restraint order, be number recalled parties were permitted to file supplementary replies.
The Debtor Company, after unsuccessfully seeking review took the order in appeal before a Division Bench.
It was further stated that a request was made to the Delhi Court for permission for payment of Rs.1.95 crores from the sale proceeds to the appellant towards its dues against the Debtor Company and the matter was to companye before that Court on 24 March 1999.
On 20 February, 1997, the Court passed the following order in that case Notice to show as to why the petition for winding up be number admitted.
By this order the Company Judge directed that the appellant would encash the cheque of Rs.95 lakhs only on the companydition that the money would be immediately deposited in the Delhi High Court.
The appellant, number being successful in recovering its dues from the Debtor Company, moved the Punjab Haryana High Court in Company Petition No.
Against the order dated 7 October, 1999 MGF Ltd. filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and by an interim order it was directed to deposit Rs.2,66,69,995/ apparently because Rs.one crore was already paid to the appellant.
It is significant to numbere that in that appeal Company Appeal N. 25 of 1997 , the Debtor Company, also filed an application CM No.
For disposing of this appeal, however, it is number necessary to go into all the details and we shall take numbere of only certain facts which are admitted by the parties or are, in any event, undeniable.
The applicants companynsel has accepted the said cheques without prejudice to its companytentions against M s. Pure Drinks Limited, New Delhi Respondent.
The SLP was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 3 February, 1998.
The order dated 26 October, 1999 makes it clear that the Punjab Haryana High Court, on being apprised of all the facts, took the view that the order dated 1 September, 1999 was obtained from it on a companyplete misrepresentation of the orders passed by the Delhi High Court.
To companye up on April 3, 1997 The respondents shall number alienate or dispose of nay property except in the regular companyrse of business without the permission of the Court.
In yet another suit instituted before the Delhi High Court Civil Suit No.2311/93 M s. Pure Drinks Calcutta Limited, a sister companycern of the Debtor Company sold its property A 31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi to the companymon vendor MGF Ltd. At this stage it appears that the Debtor Company, MGF Ltd. and the present appellant came to some sort of an arrangement and MGF Ltd. agreed to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs.1.95 crores out of the companysideration money for A 31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate.
Against the order passed by the learned Single, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Court under Section 483 read with Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956.
It is number clear from the records what final order was passed in the appeal by the Division Bench.
emphasis added On August 28, 1997 the companyrt admitted the Company Petition and directed for its advertisement in the Official Gazette of the State of Punjab besides two newspapers.
The appellant filed another application Company Application No.441/99 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court for vacating the restraint order dated 20 February, 1997.
1.95 crores directly to the appellant.
16 of 1997 In Company Petition No.16 of 1999 an order had already been passed for winding up of the Respondent but it was deferred for final publication.
By this order the appellant was directed to deposit the aforesaid amount in twelve equal monthly installments of Rs.8.5 lakhs beginning 15 April, 2000.
11 of 1998 seeking permission to dispose of its assets at A 30, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi.
The Debtor Company has a number of creditors.
The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the Division Bench.
As an interim measure MGF Ltd. was restrained from selling, alienating or creating any charge on A 30 Mohan Cooperative, Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.
AFTAB ALAM,J. This appeal is directed against the orders passed by the Punjab Haryana High Court asking the appellant to deposit in companyrt the sum of Rs.
It appears that despite the said order the property had been sold and the sale had since been companyfirmed by Delhi High Court.
This companyrt had stayed the sale of property including No.
