Page 1

NON REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10753 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 31035 of 2011)  

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.

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment  dated  14th 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  

1

Page 2

filed  by  the  Andhra  Pradesh  Industrial  Infrastructure  

Corporation Ltd.

3. The circumstances in which the aforestated appeal has been  

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-

Corporation, under a letter dated 31st August, 1988, the appellant-

Corporation  had  allotted  a  plot  to  M/s.  Team-Asia  Lakhi  

Semiconductors Ltd.  on conditions incorporated in the said letter.  

The allotment was made in pursuance of an application dated 20th  

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  

2

Page 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  

allotment  order.   It  is  an  admitted  fact  that  within  the  period  

prescribed, the entire price of the plot had not been paid by the said  

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  

allotment was cancelled, a request was made by the Company to  

grant another plot at some reduced price and in pursuance of the  

said request, the appellant had addressed another letter dated 13th  

March, 2000 to the Company offering another plot.  The Company  

again  failed  to  comply  with  the  conditions  and  therefore,  the  

proposal with regard to allotment under the letter dated 13 th March,  

3

Page 4

2000  also  failed.   Once  again  another  plot  was  offered  to  the  

Company by the appellant under letter  dated 3rd April,  2001 for  

Rs.80,00,000/-  but  the  said  transaction  also  did  not  materialize.  

The  aforesaid  facts  demonstrate  the  chequered  history  and  the  

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  

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  

4

Page 5

No.178/2003  was  filed  by  the  appellant  praying  for  taking  

possession of the plot in question as the plot was in unauthorized  

possession of the Company.  In the said proceedings, the official  

liquidator admitted the fact that the plot in question had not been  

transferred in the name of the Company.  Ultimately, by an order  

dated  28th 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  

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.

5

Page 6

7. The  said  appeal  filed  by  the  appellant  has  also  been  

dismissed by the  High Court  of  A.P.  and therefore,  the present  

appeal has been filed by the appellant-Corporation.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant had submitted before  

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  

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.

6

Page 7

10. On  the  other  hand,  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

official liquidator of the Company had submitted that as an order  

of winding up had already been passed and as the Company had  

paid  substantial  amount  towards  purchase  price  of  the  plot  in  

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  

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  

7

Page 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.

13. In  the  aforestated  circumstances,  in  our  opinion,  the  High  

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  

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  

8

Page 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  

of the said plot and it would be open to the appellant-Corporation  

to deal with or allot the said plot as per its own policy.

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

9

Page 10

ITEM NO.1A             COURT NO.12             SECTION XIIA (For Judgment)

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS                      C.A.NO.10753/2013 arising out of S.L.P.(C)No(s).31035/2011

(From the judgement and order dated 14/03/2011 in OSA  No.18/2008 of The HIGH COURT OF A.P. AT HYDERABAD)

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  

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) Court Master

(Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master

1

Page 11

(Signed Non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)

1