Eastern India Appaprel &
Textile Exporter Association and ANR Vs. Official Liquidator and ANR  INSC
423 (12 March 2008)
S.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar
O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2045 OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.229/2005]
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
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.
Pages: 1 2 3