CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2045 of 2008 PETITIONER: EASTERN INDIA APPAPREL & TEXTILE EXPORTER ASSOCIATION AND ANR RESPONDENT: OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND ANR DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/03/2008 BENCH: S.B. SINHA & P.P. NAOLEKAR JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2045 OF 2008
[Arising out of SLP(C) No.229/2005]
Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.10.2004 passed by a
Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in A.P.O.T. No.434/2004 whereby and
whereunder the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed in limine. The said
appeal was preferred by the appellants from an order dated 29.6.2004 passed by a
learned Single Judge of the High Court, directing:
The representative of the Official Liquidator is directed to visit the
premises at 10 O’Clock in the morning on June 21, 2004 and the
representative is directed to hand over possession of the premises in
question to the persons from whom the Official Liquidator has taken
possession upon receipt of the said sum of Rs. 1,65,000/-. After
receipt of the said sum the Official Liquidator will hold the same
until further orders of the Court.
Appellants contend that the building in question, namely, 26/Park Lane, 2nd Floor,
Calcutta, originally belonged to one Mrs. Nasreen Wahhab. One B.Q. Nandy is said to
be the tenant in the said premises. According to the appellants, Shri B.Q. Nandy had
allowed the following five different concerns to use ‘table spaces’ at the aforesaid
premises:
i) M/s. Fortune Multitraders Ltd.
ii) M/s. Eastern India Apparel & Textiles Exporters Association
iii) M/s. Mon Lam (India) Pvt. Ltd.
iv) M/s. Nandy Associates
v) M/s. B.Q. Global
An affidavit of B.Q. Nandy has been placed on record. If what is stated by him in his
affidavit is correct, we are prima facie of the opinion that there is some force in the
contention of the learned learned counsel for the appellants that M/s. Fortune
Multitraders Ltd., the company in liquidation was also only a table space holder and,
thus, the right, title and interest of the other table space holders, like the appellants
before us, could not have been the subject matter of any direction by the learned
Company Judge.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court
committed a serious error in dismissing the appeal in limine. The impugned judgment
is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration
of the appeal afresh on merit.
The appeal is allowed with the aforementioned direction. No costs.