Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
OLR/29/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
OFFICIAL
LIQUDATOR REPORT No. 29 of 2010
In
COMPANY
PETITION No. 6 of 2002
=========================================
OFFICIAL
LIQUIDATOR OF M/S KWALITY ROLLER & BALL BEARING - Applicant(s)
Versus
DENA
BANK ASSETS RECOVERY BR. & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
MRUGESH JANI for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR PRANAV G DESAI for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
HARMISH K SHAH for Respondent(s) : 2,
None for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 26/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
present Official Liquidator’s Report has been submitted by the
Official Liquidator of M/s. Kwality Roler & Ball Bearing Pvt.
Ltd. (in liquidation) for an appropriate direction on purchaser,
being respondent no. 2, to pay an amount of Rs. 10,21,492/-
together with interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum till
actual realisation to the Official Liquidator towards damage/loss
caused by them to the property of the Company due to unauthorised
dismantling and removal of the building structure of the Company,
which was not sold to him.
2. It
is an admitted position that respondent no. 2 was sold only the
movables i.e. plant and machinery and the land and building was not
sold to respondent no. 2, still respondent no. 2 has dismantled the
entire property of the Company in liquidation and has removed the
building structure of the Company, which was not sold to him. As
per the valuers report, value of the building structure etc. other
than the land was Rs. 10,21,492/- and, therefore, respondent no. 2 is
liable to compensate/pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,21,492/-
alongwith interest and penalty to the Official Liquidator as
respondent no. 2 has dismantled and removed the building structure
of the Company in liquidation unauthorisedly.
3. Shri
Harmish Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.
2 has submitted that even the security agency can also be held liable
for penalty.
4. In
view of the above, respondent no. 2 is hereby directed to pay an
amount of Rs. 10,60,000/-, in all, (inclusive of the amount of
interest, penalty etc.), for causing damage/loss to the property to
the Company and/or loss to the property of the Company due to
unauthorised dismantling and removal of the building structure of
Company, which was not sold to him. Respondent no. 2 to make the
aforesaid payment to the office of the Official Liquidator within
three weeks from today.
5. Shri
Harmish K. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent
no. 2 has submitted that respondent no. 2 is interested in purchasing
the land also.
6. Official
Liquidator to get fresh valuation of the land in question within a
period of four weeks from today and submit an appropriate report
before this Court for fixing upset price and inviting fresh offers
with respect to the land in question. As and when such offers are
invited, it will be open for respondent no. 2 to submit the offer,
which shall be considered on its own.
7. With
respect to the prayer in terms of paragraph 11(B), the same is kept
open and after getting necessary verification from the security
agency, to be placed before this Court for appropriate orders.
8. With
this, the present Official Liquidator’s Report is disposed of.
(M.R.
SHAH, J.)
siji
Top