Skip to main content

SC: Possession of plot for limited purpose does not create any interest or right

Liquidator barred from selling plot

The Supreme Court has ruled that possession of a plot given to a company for a limited purpose would not create any interest or right in its favour. The Andhra Pradesh High Court view to the contrary was set aside in the appeal, APII Corporation Ltd vs Team-Asia Lakhi Semiconductors Ltd. Government-owned APII Corporation allotted plots for setting up industries to different persons on certain conditions. Team-Asia got a plot for which an amount had to be paid to the corporation. It was given possession for a limited purpose and allowed possession. The company could not pay the amount within the prescribed time and therefore the part amount already paid was forfeited. The company later went into liquidation and the official liquidator wanted to take back possession of the plot and sell it. The government corporation moved the company court against it, but its petition was dismissed. It appealed to the Supreme Court. While quashing the high court order, the Supreme Court stated that the plot in question did not belong to the company in liquidation and the official liquidator had no right to deal with it or dispose of it. The corporation can deal with the plot according to its own policy, the judgment said.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu
4 comments
Read more

Power of arrest is to be used with great circumspection and not casually

In Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd v. Union Of India & Ors., writ Petitions were filed by two entities operating on-line platforms/web portals raise important questions involving powers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) of arrest, investigation and assessment of service tax under provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. In both writ petitions, applications were filed for interim directions to restrain DGCEI from taking any coercive steps against the entities and their officers. Scheme of provisions of Finance Act 1994 (FA), do not permit DGCEI or for that matter Service Tax Department (ST Department) to by-pass procedure as set out in Section 73A (3) and (4) of Act before going ahead with arrest of a person under Sections 90 and 91 of Act. Power of arrest is to be used with great circumspection and not casually. It is not to be straightway presumed by DGCEI, without following procedure under Section 73A (3) and (4) of Finance Act, that a person has collected
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more