logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 4464 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : Comp. A. No. 288 of 2025 & CP. No. 73 of 2000
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU
Parties : G. Murugesan & Another Versus Sterling Tree Magnum Limited., Rep by its Administrator, Justice K. Kalyanasundaram (Retd), Chennai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: T. Sundar Rajan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ambili B. Deputy Official Liquidator.
Date of Judgment : 22-06-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Judgment :-

(Prayer:- Company Application filed pursuant to the Prohibitory order dated 02.08.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court in the above Application No.269 of 2024, with respect to the property in S.No.182/2 of Veeradipatti village listed in Page No.62 in the Annexure to the order dated 30.06.2023 which is in page No.283 of the Typedset, be not raised and consequentially why the Respondents 4 and 7 be not directed to refrain from obstructing the Petitioners from dealing with their properties pursuant to the said Prohibitory Order.)

1. The present Company Application has been filed challenging the Prohibitory order dated 02.08.2024 passed by this Court in the above Application No.269 of 2024, with respect to the property in S.No.182/2 of Veeradipatti village listed in Page No.62 in the Annexure to the order dated 30.06.2023, which is in page No.283 of the Typedset, be not raised and consequentially why the Respondents 4 and 7 be not directed to refrain from obstructing the Petitioners from dealing with their properties pursuant to the said Prohibitory Order.

2. Heard Mr. T. Sundar Rajan, learned counsel for the applicants and Ms.Ambili B, learned Deputy Official Liquidator for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants/ third parties would submit that they had purchased the properties situated in S.No.182/2 at Veeradipatti Village measuring to an extent of 64.69 Acres under an auction sale in the liquidation proceedings that were initiated agasint the fifth respondent. The sale deeds have also been executed in favour of the applicants under a registered sale deed in Document Nos. 469 & 470 of 2019. Patta has also been issued in favour of the applicants by sub-dividing the same as S.Nos.182/2A and 182/2B. It had come to their knowledge that by order dated 02.08.2024, this Court had directed the Registering Authorities to not to register any documents of the properties that have been listed in Annexure-I. In the said Annexure, S.No.182/2 had also been included. A verification of the Encumberance Certificate also do not indicate that the property in S.No.182 had never stood in the name of the Company in liquidation in the present Company Petition.

4. He would further submit that the applicants having purchased the property of the fifth respondent which was in liquidation in an another liquidation proceedings had perfected title and in that regard, he seeks this Court to raise the Prohibitory order in respect of S.No.182/2 at Veeradipatti Village, thereby permitting the applicant to deal with the said properties.

5. The Deputy Official Liquidator, on the strength of the Report filed by her would submit that by order dated 28.11.2025, this Court had directed the learned Administrator to verify the fact and file a Report, pointing out that a Report had also been filed by the learned Administrator indicating that S.No.182/2 was wrongly given as the property purchased by the Company which was only situated in S.No.183/2. She would further submit that the Ex- Director, one R.Subramaniam, in his letter dated 27.10.2018 had shown S.No.182/2 also to be the Company’s land. Hence, she would submit that it would be only appropriate to implead the said Ex-Director as a party to the proceedings as he would be the person who would be competent enough to verify the facts stated in his letter dated 27.10.2018 and she had placed reliance on the said letter which had been annexed as Annexure-B to the said Report.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and the Deputy Official Liquidator.

7. It is the claim of the applicant that they have purchased the property in S.No.182/2 measuring to an extent of 64.69 Acres at Veeradipatti Village as being the successful bidder in an auction which was conducted to bring the properties of the fifth respondent for sale in a liquidation proceedings. It is their specific case that the said Survey number had never been a part of the Company in liquidation in this present Company Application.

8. On the contrary, it is the claim of the Deputy Official Liquidator that the property measuring to an extent of 1.95 Acres situated in S.No.182/2 stood in the name of one Prathiba V Pai, who was the Director of the Company based upon the letter issued by an Ex-Director of the Company on 27.10.2018.

9. A perusal of the same would indicate that the extent shown to be in S.No.182/2 as owned by the Company in liquidation is to an extent of 1.95 Acres. The learned Administrator had filed a Report indicating that there are no records to show that the Company under liquidation in the present proceedings had purchased the properties in S.No.182/2.

10. The letter that had been relied upon by the Deputy Official Liquidator which had been addressed by one of the Ex-Director would indicate that Prathiba V Pai had owned various Survey numbers in Veeradipatti Village which included S.No.182/2 measuring to an extent of 1.95 Acres. It is to be noted that the S.No.183/2 had not been shown in the said letter as being owned by either Prathiba V Pai or any other persons connected with the Company.

11. The sale deed under which Prathiba V Pai had pruchased the property to an extent of 1.95 Acres had been placed on record. The said sale deed bearing Document No.1376/1994 dated 29.08.1994 indicates that the said Prathiba V Pai had purchased the extent of 1.95 Acres only in S.No.183/2 at Veeradipatti Village and the same had not been included in the list as given by the said Director.

12. In that context, the Report of the learned Administrator indicate that there are no records that extent in S.No.182/2 at Veeradipatti Village had been purchased by the Company in liquidation in the present proceedings.

13. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that S.No.182/2 which had been purchased by the applicants in an another liquidation proceedings of the fifth respondent Company also supports the case of the applicants in raising the Prohibitory order in respect of S.No.182/2 measuring to an extent of 64.69 Acres at Veeradipatti Village which is covered under Document Nos.469 & 470 of 2019 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Gandarvakottai, Pudukottai.

14. In fine, the Application stands allowed and the applicants are permitted to deal with the property in S.No.182/2 measuring to an extent of 64.69 Acres subject to other encumberances. As a sequel, the Prohibitory order dated 02.08.2024 shall also cover the S.No.183/2 at Veeradipatti Village. The learned Administrator is requested that necessary steps to secure the said property.

15. Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandarvakottai, Pudukottai/ seventh respondent.
 
  CDJLawJournal