Edcons Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abc Products Limited (In Liqn.) - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1059548
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided OnApr-16-2012
JudgeJAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS
AppellantEdcons Exports Pvt. Ltd.
RespondentAbc Products Limited (In Liqn.)
Excerpt:
order sheet in the high court at calcutta original jurisdiction original side ec no.188 of 200.ts 3.of 1987 edcons exports pvt.ltd.versus abc products limited (in liqn.) ca no.201 of 2006 cp no.148 of 2001 t 22.of 2007 tmt engineering industries versus the official liquidator and anr. ca no.373 of 2006 cp no.148 of 2001 edcons exports (p) ltd.versus official liquidator before: the hon'ble justice jayanta kumar biswas date :16. h april, 2012. mr.h.k.mitra, sr.advocate mr.utpal bose, advocate ms.s.chatterjee (nee ghosh) mr.m.k.seal, advocate. ….for edcons exports pvt.ltd.mr.p.k.das, sr.advocate. mr.k.p.majumder, advocate. …for tmt engineering industries. mr.m.c.ghosh, advocate. ms.m.sen, advocate. ….for official liquidator. the court :- all the three applications have been taken up for hearing together. over the cours.of hearing mr.das appearing for tmt that has filed ca 20.of 2006 seeking an order directing the official liquidator to release the goods and machinery possession whereof has been taken by the official liquidator pursuant to order passed in the winding up proceedings, has submitted that tmt previously claiming interest in the premises is no longer pressing that claim. he has stated that tmt has decided only to claim ownership over the goods and machinery. mr.mitra appearing for edcons that has filed ca 37.of 2006 seeking a disclaimer order and ec 18.of 2008 for execution of an eviction decree against abc, the company in liquidation, has said that edcons has never claimed any interest in the goods and machinery possession whereof was taken by the official liquidator pursuant to order passed in the winding up proceedings. under order of the company court passed in the winding up proceedings the official liquidator has taken possession of the premises and the goods and machinery lying therein. edcons’s predecessor in title instituted an ejectment suit against abc. against decree for delivery of possession abc appealed to this court. the official liquidator stepping into abc’s shoes decided not to proceed with the appeal. the appeal has since been disposed of. mr.ghosh appearing for the official liquidator has said that the official liquidator is not claiming any interest in the premises, and that the official liquidator is ready to give vacant possession of the premises to edcons. the abovenoted situation has given rise to the question whether the premises in which neither the official liquidator not tmt has been claiming any interest can be used for storing goods and machinery over which both the official liquidator representing the company in liquidation and tmt have been claiming ownership. the ownership dispute is to be adjudicated by this court; it may be necessary to take down evidence. hence, it is necessary to examine whether an interim order for removal of the goods and machinery from the premises should be made. once the goods and machinery are removed, vacant possession of the premises can be given to edcons and the two applications filed by it can be disposed of. under the circumstances, it has been suggested to mr.das to examine whether tmt is ready and willing to take possession of the goods and machinery and remove them from the premises giving suitable security. mr.das has sought accommodation for a fortnight. mr.ghosh has said that neither edcons not tmt should be permitted to claim any rent from the official liquidator for using the premises for storing the goods and machinery. mr.mitra has said that while edcons reserves it right to proceed against tmt it is making it clear that will not claim any rent from the official liquidator for using the premises for storing the goods and machinery. tmt has no reason to claim any charge for storing the goods and machinery, for tmt is not claiming any interest in the premises. as a matter of fact the goods and machinery over which it is claiming ownership have been stored in the premises, vacant possession whereof is to be given to edcons the owners of the premises. in view of the abovenoted situation, hearing of the three applications is adjourned for a fortnight. the question of removal of the goods and machinery by tmt or their disposal by the official liquidator will be considered next day. certified xerox. (jayanta kumar biswas, j.) gh.
Judgment:

ORDER

SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE EC NO.188 OF 200.TS 3.of 1987 EDCONS EXPORTS PVT.LTD.Versus ABC PRODUCTS LIMITED (IN LIQN.) CA No.201 of 2006 CP No.148 of 2001 T 22.of 2007 TMT ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES Versus THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND ANR.

CA No.373 of 2006 CP No.148 of 2001 EDCONS EXPORTS (P) LTD.Versus OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS Date :

16. h April, 2012.

Mr.H.K.Mitra, Sr.Advocate Mr.Utpal Bose, Advocate Ms.S.Chatterjee (nee Ghosh) Mr.M.K.Seal, Advocate.

….for Edcons Exports PVT.LTD.Mr.P.K.Das, Sr.Advocate.

Mr.K.P.Majumder, Advocate.

…for TMT Engineering Industries.

Mr.M.C.Ghosh, Advocate.

Ms.M.Sen, Advocate.

….for official liquidator.

The Court :- All the three applications have been taken up for hearing together.

Over the couRs.of hearing Mr.Das appearing for TMT that has filed CA 20.of 2006 seeking an order directing the official liquidator to release the goods and machinery possession whereof has been taken by the official liquidator pursuant to order passed in the winding up proceedings, has submitted that TMT previously claiming interest in the premises is no longer pressing that claim.

He has stated that TMT has decided only to claim ownership over the goods and machinery.

Mr.Mitra appearing for Edcons that has filed CA 37.of 2006 seeking a disclaimer order and EC 18.of 2008 for execution of an eviction decree against ABC, the company in liquidation, has said that Edcons has never claimed any interest in the goods and machinery possession whereof was taken by the official liquidator pursuant to order passed in the winding up proceedings.

Under order of the Company Court passed in the winding up proceedings the official liquidator has taken possession of the premises and the goods and machinery lying therein.

Edcons’s predecessor in title instituted an ejectment suit against ABC.

Against decree for delivery of possession ABC appealed to this Court.

The official liquidator stepping into ABC’s shoes decided not to proceed with the appeal.

The appeal has since been disposed of.

Mr.Ghosh appearing for the official liquidator has said that the official liquidator is not claiming any interest in the premises, and that the official liquidator is ready to give vacant possession of the premises to Edcons.

The abovenoted situation has given rise to the question whether the premises in which neither the official liquidator not TMT has been claiming any interest can be used for storing goods and machinery over which both the official liquidator representing the company in liquidation and TMT have been claiming ownership.

The ownership dispute is to be adjudicated by this Court; it may be necessary to take down evidence.

Hence, it is necessary to examine whether an interim order for removal of the goods and machinery from the premises should be made.

Once the goods and machinery are removed, vacant possession of the premises can be given to Edcons and the two applications filed by it can be disposed of.

Under the circumstances, it has been suggested to Mr.Das to examine whether TMT is ready and willing to take possession of the goods and machinery and remove them from the premises giving suitable security.

Mr.Das has sought accommodation for a fortnight.

Mr.Ghosh has said that neither Edcons not TMT should be permitted to claim any rent from the official liquidator for using the premises for storing the goods and machinery.

Mr.Mitra has said that while Edcons reserves it right to proceed against TMT it is making it clear that will not claim any rent from the official liquidator for using the premises for storing the goods and machinery.

TMT has no reason to claim any charge for storing the goods and machinery, for TMT is not claiming any interest in the premises.

As a matter of fact the goods and machinery over which it is claiming ownership have been stored in the premises, vacant possession whereof is to be given to Edcons the owners of the premises.

In view of the abovenoted situation, hearing of the three applications is adjourned for a fortnight.

The question of removal of the goods and machinery by TMT or their disposal by the official liquidator will be considered next day.

Certified xerox.

(JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J.) GH.