Rajiv Jain v. The Official Liquidator High Court Calcutta And ANR

IA No. ACO 1 of 2023 APOT No. 82 of 2023 with CA No. 10 of 2022 CP No. 593 of 2000

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

In appeal from its ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Rajiv Jain

Versus

The Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta & Anr. Before:

The Hon'ble Justice I. P. MUKERJI And The Hon'ble Justice BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY Date: 30th August 2023 Appearance:

Mr. Sakya Sen, Advocate Mr. Supratim Laha, Advocate Mr. Akash Ray, Advocate Mr. Pranjal Pal, Advocate for the appellant Mrs. Manju Bhuteria, Advocate Ms. Arundhati Barman Roy, Advocate For the O/L Mr. Prasenjit Pal, Advocate Mr. Aviroop Chatterjee, Advocate Mr. Rishov Das, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Debrup Bhattacharjee, Advocate for the purchaser The Court: A tea company is involved. The Official Liquidator claims this estate to be a part of the assets of the company (in liqn.) Mr. Sakya Sen, learned advocate appearing for the Receiver appointed by Assam Provident Fund Authority to run the tea garden says that it does not form a part of the assets of the said company (in liqn.). On our examination of the impugned order dated 9th February 2023 it appears that this question was not addressed in detail by the learned single judge. We have been informed that the application made by Rajib Jain stands dismissed for default.

Whatever may be the result of the proceedings, a decision whether the said tea garden belonged to the company (in liqn.) or not at the time of

the winding-up order was passed is very crucial in determining the other issues involved including the entitlement of the creditors and contributories of the said company after sale of the said property. Therefore we remand the entire matter to the learned single judge for de novo consideration of all issues involved, particularly whether the tea garden in question belonged to the company (in liqn.) or not and if yes, to what extent?

The purchaser of the tea estate shall not create any third interest. In the special circumstances, we set aside the order dismissing the application, CA No. 10 of 2022 and direct the said application be heard out in the presence of all the parties, as expeditiously as possible. All observations in the judgment are tentative. All points are kept open before the learned single judge.

The appeal (APOT 82 of 2023) and the application (IA No. ACO 1 of 2023) are disposed of.

(I. P. MUKERJI, J.) (BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.) R. Bose