1. The respondent No.1 has tendered an affidavit which is said to be in pursuance of the previous orders including the order dated 2nd December 2011.
2. Mr.
Yadav, learned counsel for the Official Liquidator has submitted that the Official Liquidator is collecting the details about the transfer of the two properties. He also submitted that with regard to the said aspect, the Director has been called for making the statement/giving details and the statement is being recorded under Rule 130. He also submitted that yesterday, part of the statement was recorded and the process is in progress and further statement is to be recorded today and hopefully it may be concluded today. He submitted that the Official Liquidator proposes to file separate report after the statement is recorded and on the basis of the details which may be gathered from the statement by the Director. He also submitted that in the proposed report/affidavit the Official Liquidator would be able to deal with the affidavit which is tendered by the respondent No.1 today.
3. The learned Advocate for respondent No.1 was asked to give details with regard to the date on which the agreement to sell the property in question to the purchaser was executed. He made reference of document on page 495 and submitted that the transfer was effected on 20th March 2009. On perusal of the said document on page 495 it comes out that the said document is supplementary agreement with GIDC whereby GIDC appears to have transferred the rights in favour of the purchaser on 20th March 2009.
4. So far as the other property in question i.e. the property situate at Bombay is concerned, the respondent No.1 has claimed that the said property was not the property of the company and that therefore any question of the company transferring the said property to anyone else could not arise.
5. Mr.
Mehta, learned Advocate has submitted that according to the information with his client the property in question is transferred to subsidiary/group company on the ground that it is transferred in lieu of payment of the loan amount. He submitted that the respondent No.16 will give necessary details on record with regard to the said second property at Bombay. With reference to the property being plot No.141/2/A, Mr. Mehta, learned Advocate for the respondent No.16 submitted that the company had passed a resolution in January 2009 whereby the company had agreed to sell the property and also agreed to use the amounts received from such sale for payment of the dues of the workmen.
6. Since, according to the submissions made by Mr. Yadav, learned Advocate for the O.L., the statement of the Director is still being recorded and the O.L. proposes to file additional report on the basis of the details which may be gathered from the statement by the Director, for the present, the hearing is adjourned to 25th January 2012 and by that time the O.L. shall file further report on the basis of the statement of the Director which is being recorded. During the statement the Official Liquidator shall inquire from the Director the exact details about both the properties and ask for the relevant material in support of the details which may be mentioned by the Director. The dates on which the agreement to sell was made, may also be inquired and informed the Court.
7. The affidavit filed by respondent No.1 is taken on record, since it is informed that the copies have been served to the advocates appearing for the contesting parties. S.O. to 25th January 2012.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) jani Top