A.P.I.I.C.LTD vs. M/S TEAM-ASIA LAKHI SEMICONDUCTORS L.&AN

1 NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

The A.P.I.I. Corpn. Ltd. .....Appellant. Versus M/s. Team-Asia Lakhi Semiconductors Ltd. (in liquidation) rep. by the Official Liquidator, Hyderabad & Anr. …..Respondents J U D G M E N T ANIL R. DAVE, J. JUDGMENT 1. Leave granted. th 2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 14 March, 2011 delivered by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in O.S.A.No.18 of 2008, this appeal has been Page 1 2 filed by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.

filed are as under: The appellant is a Government Corporation which allots plots of land for the purpose of setting up industries to different persons. The plots are allotted on certain conditions and if the conditions are not fulfilled or if the entire payment is not made within the time stipulated, the allotment is cancelled and possession of the plot is taken back by the appellant. In pursuance of the aforestated activity of the appellant- st Corporation, under a letter dated 31 August, 1988, the appellant- JUDGMENT Corporation had allotted a plot to M/s. Team-Asia Lakhi Semiconductors Ltd. on conditions incorporated in the said letter. th The allotment was made in pursuance of an application dated 20 August, 1988 submitted by the M/s. Team-Asia Lakhi Semiconductors Ltd. and the plot was valued at Rs.1,22,67,500/- and the said amount had been calculated at the rate of Rs.250/- per Page 2 3 sq. meter. The said amount had to be paid to the appellant- Corporation within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the

allottee to the appellant-Corporation and in the circumstances, as per clause 8 incorporated in the said letter, which reads as under, the amount paid by the afore-named company had been forfeited. “8 . If payment as stipulated in condition (3) above is not made within 60 days of receipt of this allotment letter, this allotment letter shall stand cancelled and the EMD paid shall remain forfeited.” 4. After the Company had failed to make payment and the JUDGMENT allotment was cancelled, a request was made by the Company to grant another plot at some reduced price and in pursuance of the th said request, the appellant had addressed another letter dated 13 March, 2000 to the Company offering another plot. The Company again failed to comply with the conditions and therefore, the th proposal with regard to allotment under the letter dated 13 March, Page 3 4 2000 also failed. Once again another plot was offered to the rd Company by the appellant under letter dated 3 April, 2001 for

circumstances in which the Company could not make entire payment of the plot in question, which ultimately resulted into forfeiture of the amount paid and even possession of the plot in question was with the appellant though for a limited purpose, the Company was permitted to occupy the plot. 5. It is pertinent to note that the Company, because of its very poor financial conditions, was ordered to be wound up and the official liquidator, appointed by the Company Court wanted to take JUDGMENT possession of the plot in question so that the said plot may be sold and out of the sale price, dues of the Company may be paid. When the appellant-Corporation came to know that the official liquidator was making an effort to dispose of the plot in question, believing the plot to be one of the assets of the Company in Liquidation, a Company Application No.474/2006 in the Company Petition Page 4 5 No.178/2003 was filed by the appellant praying for taking possession of the plot in question as the plot was in unauthorized

transferred in the name of the Company. Ultimately, by an order th dated 28 June, 2007 the Company application filed by the appellant had been dismissed by the High Court with a direction to the official liquidator to take appropriate steps to dispose of the plot in question. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforestated order passed in the Company application, the appellant had filed an appeal being O.S.A.No.20/2008 before the High Court contending that the plot JUDGMENT in question had not been transferred to the Company and therefore, the official liquidator had no right or title in respect of the plot in question and therefore, he could not have taken any action for selling the same. Page 5 6 7. The said appeal filed by the appellant has also been dismissed by the High Court of A.P. and therefore, the present

this Court that the ownership right in the plot in question had not been transferred to the Company and therefore, the official liquidator had no right to deal with the said plot. The learned counsel had further submitted that it was an admitted fact that the entire amount of the sale price had not been paid to the appellant by the Company and therefore, the plot had not been transferred to the Company. 9. For the aforestated reasons, the learned counsel had JUDGMENT submitted that the impugned order passed by the High Court requires to be quashed so that the appellant-Corporation can deal itself with the plot in the manner in which it likes, especially when the amount which had been paid by the Company had already been forfeited because the Company had not fulfilled the conditions on which the plot had been allotted. Page 6 7 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the official liquidator of the Company had submitted that as an order

question, the official liquidator was rightly permitted to dispose of the plot as the plot virtually belonged to the Company. 11. The learned counsel had tried to substantiate the reasons given by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench while deciding O.S.A.No.18 of 2008 in favour of the official liquidator and had submitted that the appeal should be dismissed. 12. We had heard the learned counsel and had also perused the relevant record which clearly shows that the ownership right in JUDGMENT respect of the plot in question has not been transferred to the Company. It is an admitted fact that the Company, which is now in liquidation, had not paid the entire amount of the consideration and therefore, the ownership right in respect of the plot had not been transferred to the Company. According to the terms and conditions on which the plot was to be sold to the Company, the Page 7 8 amount which had been paid by the Company had already been forfeited and the Company had no right of whatsoever type in the plot in question.

Court was not justified in giving any right in respect of the plot in question to the official liquidator or the Company. It is pertinent to note that the ownership of the plot in question had not been transferred to the Company and a permissive possession given by the appellant to the Company for some limited purpose would not create any interest or right in favour of the Company. The plot would remain the property of the appellant-Corporation as the conditions on which the transfer was to take place had not been JUDGMENT fulfilled. 14. In the aforestated circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court was in error while coming to the conclusion that the appellant had no right in the plot in question and therefore, the impugned judgment as well as the order passed in Company Application are quashed and set aside and it is held that the plot in Page 8 9 question does not belong to the Company in liquidation and the official liquidator has no right to deal with the said plot or dispose

15. The impugned order as well as the order passed in Company Application are quashed. The appeal is, therefore, allowed with no order as to costs. ……...........................................J. (ANIL R. DAVE) ……...........................................J. (DIPAK MISRA) New Delhi November 29, 2013 JUDGMENT Page 9 1 ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.12 SECTION XIIA (For Judgment)

A.P.I.I.C.LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S TEAM-ASIA LAKHI SEMICONDUCTORS L.&AN Respondent(s) Date: 29/11/2013 This Appeal was called on for pronouncement of Judgment today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao,Adv. For Respondent(s) M/s. Lawyer's Knit & Co,Advs. Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave pronounced the Non-reportable judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and His Lordship. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs in terms of the signed reportable judgment. (Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master Court Master Page 10 1 (Signed Non-reportable judgment is placed on the file) JUDGMENT Page 11