Shri Krit Narain Thakur vs The State of Bihar and Others

This appeal is by a person, who had occupied the premises of a company in liquidation is not only ill-advised but also misconceived.

The company in liquidation is M/s Thakur Ram Ganga Prasad Pvt. Ltd. The Appellant was the Petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 11642 of 1995. He is Krit Narayan Thakur. The Respondents as arrayed in the appeal are the State of Bihar, Mr., J.B. Tubid, Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Darbhanga, Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar Darbhanga, Mr. Ram Prakash Yadav, Block Development Officer, Darbhanga and Mr. Ramesh Chandra Meena, Official Liquidator, High Court, Patna.

The writ petition was bad for non-joinder of a necessary Party as the Company, from whom the relief is sought is now in liquidation being M/s Thakur Ram Ganga Prasad Pvt. Ltd., and had never been made a party Respondent. The filing of the writ petition by the Petitioner was an abuse of the process of the court.

Thus, this Court is satisfied that the writ petition itself was not maintainable. Truely, any relief which the Appellant is seeking was and is against the company, now in liquidation. The official liquidator was only incharge of it after the order of winding up when the Board of Directors stood superseded and he appeared to take their place. These are the consequences of a winding up order.

The issue raised in the present Letters Patent Appeal notwithstanding that it is not maintainable as even the writ petition was not maintainable, is now academic but as the learned Counsel for the Appellant insists in pressing the appeal, the aspect is being noticed.

The Appellant, Shri Krit Narain Thakur happened to occupy the premises of the company, but could show no origins of his tenancy as he claims. The Petitioner-Appellant is one such person, who lingered in the premises. The court inquired whether he has any status better than the Directors of the Company, the answer was that he does not. It is not understood how the Appellant can linger in the premises of the company with a status not better than the Director of a company. Other similarly situated persons were resisting eviction from occupation of the premises of the company, complained to the company Judge, but got no relief. When they got no direction they filed a Letters Patent Appeal and thereafter a Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court. All proceedings were unsuccessful. The position of the Petitioner is no better than the others, who had to leave the premises of the company. The Petitioner-Appellant also has vacated the premises of the company. He says he was made to it irregularly.

Thus, in these circumstances, if the contention of the Appellant be restitution and put back into possession such an order is not possible that after a winding up order, a fresh arrangement be made with the official liquidator to winding up the affairs of the company but create a fresh tenancy. The relief which the Appellant seeks to get back into the premises of the company is misconceived.

The present appeal is dismissed.