The Court reaffirmed its wide powers under Section 446 of the Companies Act. Held that tenancy rights are not considered assets for the purpose of winding up. Stated that the official liquidator’s justification for retaining the premises was not supported by evidence of genuine need. Concluded that continued possession would result in unnecessary financial burden on the company in liquidation without serving any winding-up purpose.

The Court allowed the application and directed the official liquidator to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the two flats to the applicants within four weeks.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Companies Act, 1956 – Section 446 – Wide powers of the Company Court to pass appropriate orders regarding assets and claims related to the company in liquidation.

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 60(k)(c) – Relevance to the nature of premises (residential or commercial).

Subjects:

• Companies Act

• Tenancy Rights

• Official Liquidator

• Winding Up

• Liquidation Proceedings

• Possession of Premises

Nature of the Litigation: The applicants, being landlords of the premises taken on monthly tenancy by the company in liquidation, sought direction from the Court for the official liquidator to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises.

Who Asked the Court and For What Remedy: The applicants, being owners of the premises, requested the Court to direct the official liquidator to return the possession of the premises on the ground that the company in liquidation no longer required them for the winding-up process.

Reason for Filing the Case: The premises were lying unused, and the official liquidator had taken only symbolic possession without any demonstrable need for the said premises.

What Has Already Been Decided Until Now: The company was ordered to be wound up on 16th February 2018, and the official liquidator was appointed. The applicants filed the present application on 20th March 2019, seeking possession of the premises. Despite the Court's orders for physical possession, the premises remained unused for company affairs.

Issues:

• Whether the tenancy rights of the company in liquidation can be considered as assets.

• Whether the official liquidator’s stated need for the premises is genuine.

• Whether the Company Court has the power under Section 446 of the Companies Act to order possession to be returned to the landlords.

Submissions/Arguments:

(a) Applicants: Argued that tenancy rights are not assets of the company in liquidation and cited multiple judgments supporting the Court’s power under Section 446. (b) Official Liquidator: Claimed the premises were needed for storing records and books related to the liquidation process without providing specific justifications.