# S.C. Shukla v. The Official Liquidator, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand - **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 887 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2011-08-29 - **Bench:** Arun Tandon - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/s-c-shukla-v-the-official-liquidator-uttar-pradesh-and-uttarakhand-41995 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote Sri A.K. Gupta Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla Sri Ankush Tandon Sri C.B. Gupta Sri Kush Saxena Sri Kushal Kant Sri Manish Tandon Sri Narendra Mohan Sri P.C.Jhingan Sri R.P. Agarwal Sri Ravi Kant Sri Rohit Agrawal Sri S.K.Mishra Sri S.N.Gupta Sri Sandeep Saxena Sri Somesh Khare Sri Subhodh Kumar Sri V.M. Sharma Sri Vinay Khare Sri Vipin Sinha Sri Yashwant Verma Companies Act, Section 468, 535(e)- Delivery of possession-wound up of TELCO-applicant working as Divisional Manager given undertaking to vacate the premise in question upto 30/6/99concealing his VRS continued illegal possession upto 12 years for nominal amount of Rs. 69 per month-really shocking application rejected-office liquidator to take possession within two weeks pay Rs. 5000/-per month basis rent of w.e.f. 99 to 30.08.2011 failing which-D.M. To recover as arrears of land revenue-also direction issued for contempt proceeding under Section 195 readwith 340 Cr.P.C. Held: Para 19 Because of such uncalled for proceeding being initiated before Company Court, the disposal of the properties of TAFCO has been withheld for decades together, which in turn result in denial of money to the creditors. The application filed by Sri S.C. Shukla is held to be an abuse of process of the Court. ## Text 2 All] S.C. Shukla V. The Official Liquidator, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand 887 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J. Civil Misc. Company Application No. - 4 of 1995 S.C. Shukla ...Applicant Versus The Official Liquidator, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ashok Bhushan Sri A.K.Mishra Sri Ashok Mehta O.L. U.L. Patole Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.K. Gupta Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla Sri Ankush Tandon Sri C.B. Gupta Sri Kush Saxena Sri Kushal Kant Sri Manish Tandon Sri Narendra Mohan Sri P.C.Jhingan Sri R.P. Agarwal Sri Ravi Kant Sri Rohit Agrawal Sri S.K.Mishra Sri S.N.Gupta Sri Sandeep Saxena Sri Somesh Khare Sri Subhodh Kumar Sri V.M. Sharma Sri Vinay Khare Sri Vipin Sinha Sri Yashwant Verma Companies Act, Section 468, 535(e)- Delivery of possession-wound up of TELCO-applicant working as Divisional Manager given undertaking to vacate the premise in question upto 30/6/99concealing his VRS continued illegal possession upto 12 years for nominal amount of Rs. 69 per month-really shocking application rejected-office liquidator to take possession within two weeks pay Rs. 5000/-per month basis rent of w.e.f. 99 to 30.08.2011 failing which-D.M. To recover as arrears of land revenue-also direction issued for contempt proceeding under Section 195 readwith 340 Cr.P.C. Held: Para 19 Because of such uncalled for proceeding being initiated before Company Court, the disposal of the properties of TAFCO has been withheld for decades together, which in turn result in denial of money to the creditors. The application filed by Sri S.C. Shukla is held to be an abuse of process of the Court. (Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.) 1. This is an application filed by Sri S.C. Shukla with the prayer that the order dated 05.02.2009 passed by the Company Court may be recalled and the applicant may not be evicted from the property in dispute and further the Official Liquidator may be directed to not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the applicant over the bungalow in question. 2. At the very outset the Court may record that the process of the Court has been abused by the present applicant, as would be apparent from the facts which shall be recorded herein under. He has to be dealt with in a manner so that the similarly situate employees do not endeavour in future to create such a situation. 3. TAFCO India Limited was directed to be wound up under the order of the Company Court as early as on 18.08.1998. Sri S.C. Shukla applicant was 888 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 admittedly an officer of the said company. In his capacity as the Divisional Manager (Administration) an allotment letter was issued by the TAFCO on 09th February, 1994 allotting him Bungalow No. 13/399B. The allotment letter contained a specific recital that the allotment will remain valid so long as Sri S.C. Shukla continues in actual employment of Corporation. Copy of the allotment letter has been produced by Sri Rohit Agrawal, counsel for Sri S.C. Shukla, today in the Court, which is taken on record. 4. Sri S.C. Shukla is stated to have made an application opting for VRS after TAFCO was wound up. In terms of the conditions imposed he also gave an undertaking along with other 627 employees and 31 officers in form of affidavit to the effect that he shall vacate the official accommodation on 30th June, 1999 and handover vacant possession of the said premises to the TAFCO. It was further undertaken that in case of failure to vacate the bungalow by 30th June, 1999 he shall render himself liable to damages and further legal action including criminal for not vacating the house. It was further specifically stated that he shall have no lien on the said bungalow after 30.06.1999. 5. The averments made in respect of such undertaking of Sri S.C. Shukla is contained in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Official Liquidator to the present application and is being quoted herein below: "9. That it is pertinent to mention here that between 1.11.1999 to 30.6.1999, 627 employees as well as 31 offices submitted declaration and gave undertaking to the effect that they will vacate the official accommodation on 30th June, 1999 and handover vacant possession of the said premises to the TAFCO and further undertook that in case of failure to vacate the bungalow by 30th June, 1999 they shall be liable to pay damages and further legal action including criminal for not vacating the house and shall be solely responsible for the damages and shall have no lien on the said bungalow after 30.6.1999." 6. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by Sri S.C. Shukla and the contents of paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit has been replied by means of paragraph 10 of the rejoinder affidavit, which reads as follows: "10. That the contents of paragraph 9 of the affidavit are not admitted as stated and hence denied. It is stated that the undertaking given was in the capacity of employer-employee relationship and the same has nothing in relation to the dispute regarding the title of the property in dispute." 7. Today Sri Manoj Mishra, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Sri S.C. Shukla, fairly stated that Sri S.C. Shukla was allotted the bungalow in his official capacity because of his being an officer of the TAFCO. Further in view of the winding up order passed by the Company Court in 1998 his engagement as an officer of TAFCO stood discharged in terms of the provisions of the Company Code Act and Rules framed thereunder by operation of law. He could not dispute the fact that an undertaking in form of affidavit had been filed for availing the V.R.S. 2 All] S.C. Shukla V. The Official Liquidator, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand 889 8. It is not in dispute that with the winding up order being issued by the Company Court, all the properties of the TAFCO stood vested in the Company Court, to be managed thereafter by the Official Liquidator. 9. Sri S.C. Shukla, contrary to the undertaking given, continues in actual possession of the bungalow even today. For the purpose of justifying his illegal occupation of the official accommodation even after 1999, a peculiar stand has been taken before this Court, namely that under Section 468 of the Company Act the Official Liquidator can take possession of such properties as are prima facie found to be of the company which has been directed for wound up. 10. Since the British India Corporation (BIC) has set up a claim qua the properties of TAFCO, including bungalow in dispute, the TAFCO cannot be said to have prima facie title. Secondly, in view of Section 535 of the Companies Act that the Official Liquidator has to issue the declaimer inasmuch as the property is covered by Section 535 Clause (c), as it is not salable because of dispute of title raised by the BIC. 11. For appreciating the objections raised, it would be worthwhile to refer to Section 468 and Section 535(c) of the Companies Act, which read as follows: "468. Delivery of property to liquidator.- The Tribunal may, at any time after making a winding up order, require any contributory for the time being on the list of contributories, and any trustee, receiver, banker, agent, officer or other employee of the company, to pay, deliver, surrender or transfer forthwith or within such time as the Tribunal directs, to the liquidator, any money, property or books and papers in his custody or under his control to which the company is prima facie entitled. 535. Disclaimer of onerous property in case of a company which is being wound up.-(1) Where any part of the property of a company which is being wound up consists of- (a) land of any tenure, burdened with onerous convenants; (b) shares or stock in companies; (c) any other property which is unsaleable or is not readily saleable, by reason of its binding the processor thereof either to the performance of any onerous act or to the payment of any sum of money; or (d) unprofitable contracts, the liquidator of the company, notwithstanding that he has endeavoured to sell or has taken possession of the property, or exercised any act of ownership in relation thereto, or done anything in pursuance of the contract, may, with the leave of the Tribunal and subject to the provisions of this section, by writing signed by him, at any time within twelve months after the commencement of the winding up or such extended period as may be allowed by the Tribunal, disclaim the property:" 12. From a simple reading of Section 468 it will be seen that only for the purposes of taking possession by Official Liquidator, after an order of 890 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 winding up, only prima facie title of the company over the property under winding up is to be seen. 13. Sri S.C. Shukla cannot be permitted to question the title of the TAFCO over the bungalow, as it was actually allotted to him by TAFCO. Further he had given an undertaking in form of an affidavit for availing the V.R.S. that he shall deliver the possession of the bungalow to TAFCO on or before 30.06.1999. It is on this undertaking that money in terms of V.R.S. (running into lacs of rupees) was paid to him. Can Sri S.C. Shukla be now permitted to say that the TAFCO does not even have prima facie title over the bungalow. The answer has to be a big No. 14. It may be recorded that deliberately Sri S.C. Shukla had not disclosed the factum of the undertaking given by him at the time of availing the V.R.S. in the present application and with the help of such concealment of fact he succeeded in obtaining an interim order on the application which permitted him to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- only and in turn had the effect of staying his eviction. 15. At lease for the period after 30th June, 1999 till date i. e. for more than 12 years Sri S.C. Shukla has paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- only towards use and occupation of the bungalow, which would work out to Rs. 833/- per year i. e. Rs. 69/- per month, which on the face of it shocks the conscious of the Court. 16. The dispute between BIC and TAFCO in respect of the property is still to be adjudicated by the Company Court qua which Sri S.C. Shukla can have no say. It is admitted to Sri S.C. Shukla that he was handed over possession of bungalow at the behest of TAFCO and not de hors the title claimed thereon by TAFCO. 17. Reference to Section 535(c) is totally out of context, inasmuch as the Official Liquidator has not issued any such disclaimer nor it is so required to be issued at this stage. 18. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the person like Sri S.C. Shukla are not entitled to any sympathy of the Court. He has unauthorizedly retained the possession of the bungalow spread over more than 200 square yard, situate in the heart of Kanpur City, for 12 years even after the company having been wound up and even after his having filed an undertaking in the form of affidavit that he shall vacate and deliver the possession of the premises to TAFCO by 30.06.1999. 19. Because of such uncalled for proceeding being initiated before Company Court, the disposal of the properties of TAFCO has been withheld for decades together, which in turn result in denial of money to the creditors. The application filed by Sri S.C. Shukla is held to be an abuse of process of the Court. 20. In the facts of the case this Court directs that the Official Liquidator shall dispossess Sri S.C. Shukla from the premises in question within two weeks from today, if he himself does not vacate the same within this period, in any case by 15th September, 2011. District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar are directed to provide all assistance to the Official Liquidator for the purpose. There should be no complaint to the court that the Official Liquidator could not take 2 All] Irfan alias Saddam V. State of U.P. and others 891 possession of the bungalow because of inaction on the part of the said district authorities. 21. For the use and occupation of the premises unauthorizedly for the period between 01.07.1999 to 30.08.2011, Sri S.C. Shukla is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand) per month through a bank draft drawn in the name of Official Liquidator of this Court by 31.09.2011, failing which the District Magistrate shall ensure recovery of the said damages as arrears of land revenue. The aforesaid exercise must be completed within two months from today. 22. Sri S.C. Shukla is further called upon to show cause as to why contempt proceedings/proceedings under Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. be not initiated against him for concealing material facts in the application filed before this Court. 23. For the purpose three weeks' time is prayed for by Sri Manoj Mishra, Advocate. 24. Let matter be listed for the purpose again on 26th September, 2011. 25. A copy of this order be issued to the Chief Standing Counsel free of cost for being forwarded to the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar for necessary compliance. --------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 03.08.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S.S. CHAUHAN, J. Criminal Revision No. 300 of 2011 Irfan alias Saddam ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. and another ...Opposite Parties Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection Act of children) Act 2000-Section 52-Appeal against the order passed by Juvenile Justice Board-dismissed by the session Judge as not maintainable by placing reliance upon Jabar Singh case-heldmisconceived-much difference in fact of Jabar Singh case-appeal against the decision of Board-held maintainable. Held: Para 8 While mentioning about the word 'finding of the court', the Apex Court virtually meant the finding of the trial court and in reference to trial court's order that observation was made that appeal was not maintainable and it was only that revision was maintainable as appeal was maintainable against the order of the competent authority. The finding recorded by the learned Sessions judge, therefore, is beside the point and beside the case law which has been mentioned and has been relied upon by him. There is much difference in the facts of both the cases and the appeal is certainly maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 52 of the Act when an order is passed by the competent authority. Case law discussed: 2010 (1) L.Cr.R. (SC) page 353 (Delivered by Hon'ble S.S. Chauhan, J. ) 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA.