COMPA/1611/2014 of M/s.Laran Sponge and Minerals (P) Ltd, (In Liqn.) Vs - on 31 December 2014

ORDER:

This application is filed by the Official Liquidator on behalf ofM/s. Laran Sponge and Minerals (P) Limited (In Liqn.) for thefollowing reliefs:

(i) to appoint Sri M.Anil Kumar Advocate to file petitionbefore the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad andappear/ represent/ contest the case on behalf of the OfficialLiquidator of M/s. Laran Sponge and Minerals (P) Ltd., (InLiqn.).before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad andappear/ represent/ contest the case on behalf of the OfficialLiquidator of M/s. Laran Sponge and Minerals (P) Ltd., (InLiqn.).

(ii) fix the fee of the Advocate so appointed by this Court asalso permit the Official Liquidator to pay the Advocate feebesides expenses from the funds of the Estate andEstablishment Fund Account being maintained by theOfficial Liquidator since the company in liquidation does nothave any funds to its credit.also permit the Official Liquidator to pay the Advocate feebesides expenses from the funds of the Estate andEstablishment Fund Account being maintained by theOfficial Liquidator since the company in liquidation does nothave any funds to its credit.

In support of this application, the Official Liquidator filed anaffidavit stating that this Court vide order dated 18.07.2011 made inC.P.No.215/2010 appointed Official Liquidator as its Liquidator forwinding up of M/s.Laran Sponge and Minerals (P) Ltd. The OfficialLiquidator addressed a letter dated 20.09.2011 to the Sub-Registrar,Halkundi Village, Bellary Taluq, Karnataka requesting him not totransfer, alienate, create any third party charge over the property ofthe company in liquidation. Basing on the letter issued by the OfficialLiquidator, the Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale certificateissued by the Indian Bank who had conducted auction of the assetsof the company and its guarantors on 29.09.2010 in response to salenotice issued under the provisions of SARFASI Act.

Aggrieved by the refusal of the Sub-Registrar, to register the sale certificate, Indian Bank filed Writ Petition bearing No.33655/2011seeking writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of Sub-Registrar,Makundi Village, Bellary District (R-1), Sub-Registrar, SanjeevaReddy Nagar, Hyderabaed (R-2) and Sub-Registrar, Kukatpally,Ranga Reddy District (R-4) in receiving and registering the salecertificate issued by the Bank under the provisions of SARFASI Act.

The Indian Bank has issued a letter dated 22.06.2012 calling uponthe Purchaser to adjust the outstanding liability in the loan accountNo.929965806 in respect of the term loan granted to it anddemanding the repayment of the entire principle together withinterest. Being aggrieved by the said letter, the purchaser also filedwrit petition No.19297/2012 questioning the issue of the letter and fordeclaring the action of the Indian Bank, as illegal and arbitrary onaccount of their failure to legally transfer and deliver possession ofthe auctioned property for enabling them to create mortgage.

The Indian Bank also filed COMPA.No.1972/2011 before thisCourt seeking a direction to the Official Liquidator to clarify thecommunication dated 20.09.2012 to the Sub-Registrar, HalkondiVillage, Bellary Taluq, Karnataka regarding not to transfer, alienate,create any third party charge over the property. The purchaser hasalso filed COMPA.No.421/2013 to set aside the sale notice dated28.08.2010.

All the above writ petitions and applications were heard togetherand same were disposed off by common order dated 29.04.2013 bythe Hon’ble Company Court granting the relief claimed inW.P.No.19297/2012 and dismissed W.P.No.33655/2011 andCOMPA.No.1972/2011 and also allowed Company ApplicationNo.421/2013.

Being aggrieved by the dismissal of W.P.No.33655/2011 andCOMPA.No.1972/2011, the Indian Bank preferred writ appealNo.1420 and 1424/2013 and OSA.No.34 & 35 of 2013 which were

Conclusion

allowed vide order dated 11.11.2014 by the Division Bench of thisCourt holding that all the questions and controversies are disputedquestion of fact and law and could not be decided in writ jurisdictionand hence held that granting of relief to the auction purchaser wasnot sustainable under the law and was pleased to set aside the sameand dismissed the writ petition leaving all the questions open andkeeping it open for the auction purchaser to approach the Debtrecovery Tribunal so also Official Liquidator or any other claimant.

In the circumstances stated above, it is just and necessary forthe Official Liquidator of M/s.Laran Sponge and Minerals (P) Ltd.,(InLiqn.) to file a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal atHyderabad and to contest/represent the case through the Advocate.

Heard learned counsel for the Official Liquidator.

Having heard the learned counsel for the Official Liquidatorand in view of the facts and circumstances stated in the affidavit,this application is allowed appointing Sri.M.Anil Kumar Advocate tofile petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad andappear/represent/contest the case on behalf of the Official Liquidatorof M/s.Laran Sponge and Minerals (P) Ltd.(In Liqn.).

With regard to the fees, it is stated by the learned counsel forthe Official Liquidator that this Court in similar circumstances inC.A.No.719 of 2014 in C.P.No.126 of 2012 fixed advocate fee atRs.50,000/-. As such, the advocate fee is fixed at Rs.50,000/-. TheOfficial Liquidator is permitted to pay 50% of the fee for the presentat the time of making application and the balance fee shall be paid onthe disposal of the case.

Date: 31-12-2014dv

_____________________________

A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J